Catching up on political issues and current events. Please send your comments to rjcmp1@yahoo.com

Thursday, June 19, 2003

David Brinkley and the Death of "The News"
The recent death of David Brinkley has evoked reminiscences – such as this column by Kathleen Parker – of the days when Huntley and Brinkley and Walter Cronkite were father figures, authoritatively declaring to American viewers “the way it is.” All this nostalgia highlights the change in the media that has been brought about by the Internet, talk radio, and cable news.

Brokaw, Rather, and Jennings have never achieved the stature of their predecessors, but the networks have continued to believe that they are revealing the simple truth to the masses. And the left, which doesn’t believe in objective truth, nevertheless believes that it resides at ABC, NBC, CBS, and NPR.

What makes Fox News so dangerous is not only that it gives conservative ideas a airing, but that it challenges the very idea of “The News.” Fox’s “fair and balanced” claim drives liberals crazy, not only because they see Fox as leaning right, but even more so because it dares suggest that network news might not be the only version of the truth. Fox News is the New York Post on TV, appealing to the common sense of the average guy. The networks are The New York Times, handing down the stone tablets. Even the most authoritative figure on Fox, Brit Hume, allows a panel of pundits on to his show to debate the issues as he’s presented them.

Similarly, what made the embedded reporters in Iraq so distressing to some people was not only that they came to understand and respect their military comrades. To those for whom “the news” is what the networks say it is, the worst thing about the embedded reporters is that they demonstrated that “news” is always seen through a particular lens.

The Internet allows and requires readers to check multiple sources, compare conflicting reports, and put together their own picture of the news. Readers become participants in defining the news (as do talk show listeners). No longer can the elites count on trusting masses accepting whatever Huntley and Brinkley tell them.

Tuesday, June 17, 2003

Term Limits - Gaining Momentum in the Blogosphere?
David Frum at National Review Online takes up the term limits cause today. When I wrote about term limits earlier this month (in reaction to Bill Clinton's remarks on the 22nd Amendment), I was thinking it might be a dead issue. Maybe not.
I'm Sorry, So Shut Up
No offense intended - this is the title of an article I have posted today at The American Spectator on the Web.

Monday, June 16, 2003

Mediscare
I believe President Bush is the most effective leader we've seen in a long, long time. And I'm impressed by how bold he is in pursuing goals dear to the hearts of conservatives -- not just tax cuts, but also things like missile defense (and an end to the ABM Treaty). But I'm having a hard time figuring out how the Medicare "reform" is anything but a disaster.

I have thought that the most important argument in favor of providing prescription drug benefits to Medicare recipients is efficiency. That is, drugs have proven to be a much more cost-effective way to treat a number of conditions than the kinds of medical treatments paid for by Medicare. The development and use of drugs to treat and prevent heart disease and other conditions is one of the great medical success stories of the past 30 years. It's often said that, if Medicare were created today, it would cover prescription drugs. That's undoubtedly true, but beside the point.

The fact that drugs are so much more cost-effective, yet no one claims cost-savings as a plus for extending benefits, proves what the Wall Street Journal emphasizes today. Most older people already have some kind of prescription drug benefit. The fact is, drugs are so valuable that people have found ways to get access to them -- by private insurance, by demand for employers to provide drug benefits, by spending their own money for something that's worth it. And low-income patients have access to government-funded prescription medicines.

In fact, when it comes to prescription drugs, the current situation is the one that Bush is supposedly trying to create for all of Medicare -- a range of options, including private sector optons. We should be trying to make the rest of Medicare look like the way seniors get their prescription drugs, instead of the other way around.

Saturday, June 07, 2003

TERM LIMITS AND DEMOCRACY
Bill "Won't You Please Just Go Away?" Clinton has revived discussion of term limits with his not-very-surprising comment in favor of repealing the 22nd Amendment. In The Corner on NRO, Kathryn Jean Lopez (June 7, scroll down) expresses a very unusual point of agreement with the former president.

This is one of those issues that does not break down along conservative-liberal lines. I'm for term limits. The case for term limits on legislative offices was made several years ago by George Will. In one word, it's "gerrymandering." His argument, and I'm paraphrasing, is that term limits are not anti-democratic, because constituents don't choose their legislators; legislators choose their constituents. The most recent redistricting in California, where Democrats conceded the opportunity to pick up several seats in the U.S. House in favor of protecting all their incumbents, illustrates Will's point. During the recent redistricting dust-up in Texas, I saw an interview of incumbent Democratic Congressmen, in which the underlying assumption was that they were being robbed of "their" seats. Here in Ohio, we have term limits on state legislators. It has resulted in a game of musical chairs, but it still makes the point that these seats don't belong to anyone.

If the argument for term limits on the Presidency was not as clear, Clinton has just made it. Yes, I fret about the day -- five and a half years from now -- when someone other than George W. Bush is president. But no president should get the idea that this could possibly be his (or her) role for life. I'd be surprised if Bush has anything other than a Cincinnatus-like view of public service. But I still want term limits.

Wednesday, June 04, 2003

VICTIM STATUS SEEKERS
I read The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice by Philip Jenkins this past week, just as an article by Jonah Goldberg touched off a lot of talk about bigotry against Republicans. Since I'm a member of both victim groups, I'm feeling pretty special. Goldberg's piece was actually a reaction to a New York Times Magazine article on "The Young Hipublicans" - conservative college students. Goldberg quotes from the article: "Today, most campus conservatives who hope to be effective won't dress like George Bush or Dick Cheney. The idea is to dress like a young person." Pretty amazing to assume that young people who are conservatives wouldn't dress like young people, except to advance their political agenda. There are also some jaw-dropping examples of how liberals think of Republicans in this round-up on Real Clear Politics. Likewise, there are some anecdotes in the Jenkins book of the amazing things that enlightened people "know" about Catholics. I guess you could call it bigotry. But the Catholics who would most likely be offended by attacks on the Church are the same ones most likely to find some reassurance in rejection by "the world." As for Republicans, we've never been into claiming bigotry - we don't need victims status to justify protection from the government. What's more, we have a sense that we're winning. So the stories are good for some shock value or a few laughs, and it's good to be aware of what some people think of us, but let's not make a habit of complaining about prejudice.

Tuesday, June 03, 2003

More on Nuclear Threat
In today's Washington Times, Bill Gertz reports on a CIA assessment that al Qaeda is "ready to use nukes." I don't know what I think about this specific report, but it's a reminder of the cloud that hangs over the world. I'm old enough to remember MAD. I've seen some comments that nobody really thought about the threat of nuclear war back then, but I did. And the heck of it is, the threat today is really more dangerous. The bottom line is that is doesn't matter for most of us - we have to live our lives to the full and not trim our plans or dreams because something bad could happen. But I do hope that the people who should be doing something about this threat are acting aggressively.

Monday, June 02, 2003

Bush's Tax Cut Victory
I have an article posted today on Tech Central Station, about the qualities that produced President Bush's astounding victory on taxes: persistence, flexibility, a focus on results rather than credit, and a willingness to take risks.
Chirac Thwarts Effort to Head Off Doomsday
Last night I posted on the need for concerted action to get control of WMDs before terrorists can launch a doomsday plot. First thing this morning, I see this article from the London Telegraph, about Chirac's opposition to a US/UK proposal to do just that. French pique wins out over international cooperation on the most pressing challenge of our lives. I recall an observation (from Mark Steyn, I think) that the countries least concerned about Saddam Hussein and WMDs were the ones most concerned about genetically modified food. There's no reason to show any deference to this kind of foolishness.

Sunday, June 01, 2003

Doomsday Warning
In today's Indianapolis Star Andrea Neal sounds the warning from Sen. Dick Lugar about the availability of weapons of mass destruction to the world's terrorists. Mike, I know you've heard Senator Lugar speak with deep emotion about what he sees as a very real danger. Lugar has not come to this issue lately -- he's been working on reducing the nuclear stockpile in the former USSR for many years. I think the war on terrorism is going well in many respects, but all that progress will mean nothing if the world fails to get control of thousands of WMDs that could quite possibly fall into the hands of terrorists. The doomsday scenarios, like the one Neal describes, are truly terrifying -- and would have a devastating and lasting impact, not just on the immediate target, but the entire world. I hope we see some clear recognition of this issue and the kind of commitment we've seen from President Bush on other aspects of the war against terror.