Ezra Klein on Trump and the media

Here’s Ezra Klein on the recent debate:

Here is the conventional wisdom about last night’s presidential debate, as I understand it. Hillary Clinton won in a rout, but that’s largely because Donald Trump flagged after an excellent first 30 minutes in which he hammered away at his strongest issue: trade.

“Donald Trump won the first 25 minutes of the first presidential debate,” writes Ross Douthat at the New York Times, in a representative piece. “He was too bullying and shout-y, too prone to interrupt, but he seized on an issue, trade, where Hillary Clinton was awkward and defensive, and he hammered away at his strongest campaign theme: linking his opponent to every establishment failure and disappointment, and trying to make her experience a liability rather than a strength.”

His colleague, Maggie Haberman, made much the same point. “Trump has a strong case to make on trade, when he makes it,” she tweeted. “He made it once and then chased shiny objects for most of the debate.”

Of course, I said the same thing yesterday.  I can’t even imagine what Douthat and Haberman were thinking, as Trump’s comments on trade were shockingly ignorant and nonsensical. He made a complete fool of himself.  Over at Econlog I pointed out that he seems to be getting advice on trade from an economist who doesn’t even know the basics.  Klein has an interesting explanation:

There’s a deep tension in the way the media judges presidential debates. On the one hand, we know that our coverage affects the public’s ultimate view of the event — in that way, we are key participants in the debate, not merely observers of it.

But that knowledge is uncomfortable. It’s not the role we are meant to play. The press wants to reflect reality, not shape it.

And so we attempt, peculiarly, to recast ourselves as observers of voter reactions we can’t observe. We judge the debate based not on what we think to be true about it but on what we think the public will think to be true about it. And so we end up asking not whether the candidates made good arguments given what we know to be true but whether they made good arguments given what we imagine voters know to be true. And once you’re in that mindset, a section where Trump sounded good can be a win even if nothing he said made sense — after all, fairly few voters are trade policy or labor market experts.

But the public isn’t relying on us to tell them what we thought they thought watching the debate. They’re relying on us to tell them what we found when we compared the candidates’ answers to reality, and to the best analysis on offer from experts, so they can make a better-informed judgment on what actually happened in the debate. And sometimes there’s a very big gap between how good a candidate’s answers sounded and how good his or her answers actually were.

That’s the case for Trump’s opening section last night. He was speaking on the issues where he’s supposed to be strongest — his whole pitch is he’s a businessman who knows how the economy really works and what is really needed to fix it — and he showed he didn’t have any real idea what he was talking about. Voters deserve to know that.

Here’s the great irony; the media is almost universally biased against Trump (excluding Fox News.)  And that’s because media people can recognize a demagogue.  But despite this bias, they are actually helping Trump by trying to be “evenhanded”, to direct equal amounts of criticism both ways. They don’t seem willing to come right out and say that the things Trump says are idiotic, and that his advisors are incompetent people who don’t know their subject.  Instead they praise his strong “performance” in the first 30 minutes.

PS.  Notice that my posts on Trump, which are admittedly very poorly done, are actually doing the job that Klein says the press should be doing, but isn’t. I’m telling people that the content of Trump’s remarks are idiotic.  I wish the press would do its job, so I could get back to monetary policy.

HT:  Last Men and Overmen, who has the following to say:

So you have several levels. One the most basic, the media is ignorant of economics. Sumner gets to the deeper level: the media cares only about style. But Klein brings it home: the reason the media cares more about style is they are in denial that they shape the news, they aren’t just pure observers of it.

The classic case of this was 2000 where most voters thought Gore won the first debate with Bush, the media reaction focused on Gore’s alleged sighs. The polls ultimately went W’s way.

Update:  I strongly recommend this piece from the FT, which could be enjoyed equally by Trump fans or foes.  It shows how the mood in Britain has shifted in a Trump-like direction, as it has elsewhere in the developed world.  And yet Trump isn’t even mentioned.


Tags:

 
 
 

37 Responses to “Ezra Klein on Trump and the media”

  1. Gravatar of Effem Effem
    28. September 2016 at 06:14

    You are misunderstanding where the trade arguments come from. The median real wage has been stagnant for a very long time. There have literally been zero proposals to remedy this by any of the last five administrations. When a problem is large, and ignored, people become willing to try anything different, even if irrational “on paper.” There is a group that would be willing to trade higher median wages for lower average wages…and that group is large and growing.

    So much of economic talk about what “makes senses” assumes a utility function. Why should greater aggregate wealth but stagnant median wealth satisfy the electorate? It looks nice in a model but it makes a lot of people unhappy. And ultimately we’re solving for utility, not wealth.

    Come up with something credible to increase median wages and trade talk will probably disappear.

  2. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    28. September 2016 at 06:41

    https://twitter.com/rosenbergerlm/status/773684010526601216
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/25/hillary-clintons-alt-right-speech-annotated/
    “They don’t seem willing to come right out and say that the things Clinton says are idiotic, and that Her advisors are incompetent people who don’t know their subject.”

    “But despite this bias, they are actually helping Trump by trying to be “evenhanded”, to direct equal amounts of criticism both ways. They don’t seem willing to come right out and say that the things Trump says are idiotic, and that his advisors are incompetent people who don’t know their subject.”

    -Do you live in America, Scott? You seem to be going crazier every day. The above could never have been written by anyone who actually reads or watches the US MSM even monthly. The lyin’ press calls out Trump’s idiocies, real or imagined, all the time. They never call out Clinton’s idiocies, much less Her advisors’. Focus on Clinton. Period.

  3. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    28. September 2016 at 06:46

    BTW, Clinton also said that the Bush Tax Cuts caused the crash of 2008. None of the MSM called Her out on it.

  4. Gravatar of Plucky Plucky
    28. September 2016 at 07:38

    The best way to think of how the media judges debate performance is to compare it to a guy at bar trying to hit on someone. You can usually tell how successful he is purely by body language, and the content of what is said is essentially irrelevant. It matters not if something is true or false, but whether the act of saying it projects “confidence” (+) or “defensiveness” (-). They view it entirely as an act of dominance signalling.

    Klein is being either mendacious or self-deluding in his explanation of this. Klein was the chief Journo-lister, so he is completely comfortable with being max-cynical in the reality and abuse of media’s ability to “shape reality.” There are two reasons elite media judge debates in this way 1) Elite media has complete and utter contempt for the bulk of the public and 2) most of the readership of elite media shares that contempt. By analyzing debates in this way, they are signalling to their readership “We know that you, dear Vox reader, are not that dumb. We are affirming your superiority by analyzing for your edification how those knuckledraggers Out There will respond, which is obviously going to be which gorilla has the most silver on its back. Klein is essentially admitting to this view in the section you quoted.

    The other thing to remember is that newsmedia are all literary types. To them, “strong argument” is purely a matter of rhetoric.

  5. Gravatar of In First Post Debate Poll, Hillary Gets a 4 Point Bump | In First Post Debate Poll, Hillary Gets a 4 Point Bump |
    28. September 2016 at 07:42

    […] Ezra Klein on Trump and the media […]

  6. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    28. September 2016 at 07:44

    Here’s the great irony; the media is almost universally biased against Trump (excluding Fox News.) And that’s because media people can recognize a demagogue.

    Apparently neither the media nor the Mercatus crew can recognize a career criminal.

  7. Gravatar of Ravi Ravi
    28. September 2016 at 08:19

    Yes, and this goes doubly for allowing Trump’s economic advisers to comment on monetary policy in a “serious” publication like the FT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c253d1b8-84cf-11e6-8897-2359a58ac7a5.html#axzz4LZE8IInB

  8. Gravatar of Ezra Klein and Scott Sumner on the Beltway Media's Original Sin | Ezra Klein and Scott Sumner on the Beltway Media's Original Sin |
    28. September 2016 at 08:25

    […] Ezra Klein on Trump and the media […]

  9. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    28. September 2016 at 08:32

    You are mixing things up again. Did you even watch the debate? Of course Douthat is right when he admits that Trump won the first 25 minutes of the debate. Trump was at the offense and Hillary was floundering. It’s like watching football. Who’s attacking and who concedes one goal after another?

    It’s not about morality or truth (if something like universal truth even exists). It’s like admitting that Hitler won Case Red and Case White. It was morally wrong, it was not fair play at all but that’s not the point when you have to decide who won the battle. Debates are wars with words and Trump clearly won the first 25 minutes and then basically lost the rest with flying colors. A bit like Hitler again.

  10. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    28. September 2016 at 09:07

    Scott…your political posts are almost always, NOT, “very poorly done”. You always have interesting insights… Often ahead of the crowd…Often wrong (not about trump though )..but always interesting.

    I know politics is a big thing for you …but not you main thing…So maybe that’s what makes your views interesting ? … you’re Kinda “outsider” even though you are part of the establishment.. An outer party member of the establishment… but still…

  11. Gravatar of mbka mbka
    28. September 2016 at 09:16

    It’s funny how people watch the same thing and see something different. I watched the whole thing and I found it utterly unremarkable. I had somehow expected that Trump was more charming than the media had portrayed him, and Hillary was more boring. But I came away with the conclusion that Trump is 20% worse than I thought he was and Hillary is 20% better. While both said some nonsense, Trump’s first 20 minutes were just an awful ridiculous mess of sinister doom and gloom, a content-less rant in fact, a litany of kindergarten level complaints. And in that, just a rehash of anything he ever said. By contrast, in terms of feeling Hillary was bright and uplifting. Content wise nothing had to be expected here either but the feeling was much better.

    Of course in these public events some boredom had to be expected, but besides these differences in feeling, nothing else or new or interesting or shocking even happened.

    BTW I don’t understand why people dislike Hillary, she appears to be a normal career politician, a professional. She’s much better in closed forums, such as the congressional hearings on Benghazi or her e-mails. There, she is supreme, cold as ice, unfazed, with a nice cynical touch. In other words, the kind of person you want as president.

    Trump is a freak of course, but a sinister one, utterly un-entertaining, to my great surprise. Not to mention the sniffles. Old man habits. And I’ve never seen him cold, machiavellistic, and politically professional the way Hillary clearly is. Trump is just a caricature of a politician.

  12. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    28. September 2016 at 09:59

    BTW I don’t understand why people dislike Hillary, she appears to be a normal career politician, a professional.

    The ink wasn’t dry on her diploma before she was fired for cause from her first law job. Her next job she landed two years and change later after her husband was elected attorney-general of Arkansas. She practiced corporate and commercial law for 14 years, which included arguing in front of commissions appointed by…her husband.

    It was also during this period that she chaired the board of trustees of the Legal Services Corporation. See James Jackson Kilpatrick’s critic of the Corporation of that era. What had been founded in 1974 to provide legal help to the indigent in civil cases was quickly turned into a financing mill by the usual lawfare artists, who made use of the poor as straw plaintiffs in class-action suits in order to advance their political projects.

    Hilligula was an associate of Saul Alinsky, of course, as well as a promoter (where she could) of a 1970s bugaboo “children’s rights”. See her explication of them in her 1973 Harvard Education Review article, as well as Christopher Lasch’s critique of that article penned 19 years later.

    Doing ‘good’ gave way to doing well. Her commodities caper occurred in 1981. To this day, no one has figured out who’s bribe was being laundered. Arkansas was a 3d world country in the Clinton era, and the function of the 1st Lady in the 3d world is to launder the bribes.

    She had a quite unselfconscious disdain for housewives, something she made clear in 1992.

    By all accounts, she’s a terror to work for (as egalitarians tend to be). Security personnel employed by the Arkansas state police and now the Secret Service have offered chapter and verse.

    She had the audacity to carpetbag to New York in 2000 to run for the U.S. Senate (and New York voters had the stupidity to vote for her). She’s spent 19 years a resident of Illinois, 17 years in Arkansas, 8 years in DC, 9 years in New England and various other places, and none in New York. Robert Kennedy had at least lived there for about 8 years as a youngster. He accomplishments in Congress were nil, but that did not stop her from running for President (contra John Edwards, another skeezy lawyer; and BO, the ultimate tyro).

    Her consolation prize was her 4 years as Secretary of State, which began squalidly, with a concerted effort to hide correspondence to avoid FOIA requests and ended squalidly with HRC lying through her pearly whites to family members of those killed at Benghazi.

    Through it all, the buckraking and money laundering has continued, primarily through the conduit of the ‘Clinton Foundation’. Richard Nixon was considered an exemplar of the crass for taking a $600,000 fee for 29 hours of unreheaarsed interviews with David Frost. A contextually similar sum today would be about $4,000,000, a sum Bilge Clinton will pull in about six months worth of boilerplate speeches to trade associations and colleges (while pocketing huge sums from ‘Laureate University”. We now have reason to believe the State department under her tenure was a big pay to play scam. Of course, she’ll skate for that too.

    Oh, and how do you like these pix:

  13. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    28. September 2016 at 10:01

    https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/anthonyweinerhuma.jpg?w=840&h=485&crop=1

    http://www.shescribes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Smith-Brothers-Logo.jpg

  14. Gravatar of Dan W. Dan W.
    28. September 2016 at 10:17

    A political argument to be made about trade should be an inquiry on whether trade is encouraged as a means of escaping costly domestic regulations. If this is the case then while such trade is better than none, the reality is that trade may simply be an arbitrage to take advantage of high costs that the political class has imposed upon its own citizens.

    If a political majority decides it is better if certain jobs are done in another country and it creates laws and regulations to make it happen, is such trade still free and fair trade?

  15. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    28. September 2016 at 10:39

    Art Deco lists some pretty salient negatives about Clinton. She’s got a lot of them. But he’d never do a similar accounting of Trump’s because he’s a crashing partisan hypocrite. He’s not the only one out there of course, but he’s a good example of the type. If Trump were a Democrat (as he kind of is) we’d see a similar, even longer list from Art about Trump.

  16. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    28. September 2016 at 11:13

    mbka “BTW I don’t understand why people dislike Hillary,”

    simply…a mythology has been successfully and intentionally, created and maintained…. to discredit her.

    I think to the majority of ears… that sounds like a conspiracy theory..
    But it’s not. It’s all been in the open.

    Mythologies aren’t myogoies until a culture adops them and breathes life into them… A culture grew up around the calculated slanders against Hill… One that happened all that is needed is to feed it… And it begs to be fed… It becomes a codependent relationship on a societal level.

    It’s very organic really…Apes gotta fling shit… nothing conspiratorial about it…

    But Deplorable…very deplorable….

    Buy the way…Don’t feed the trolls !…around here…that’s how they see me.

  17. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    28. September 2016 at 11:24

    Harding… The Trumpy camp is testing the idea that Trump was not a big enough dick to Hill…
    One of the Ideas they are testing again… is smearing hill for being…. at the same time….

    …. A women who enabled, and even pimped for Bill…

    ….And a woman who was so angry at Bill’s infidelities that she became a wicked misogynists determined to ruin the women who dared to make Bill cheat…

    you can see how there is an inherent conflict in these positions…

    so If you really want to be a good little soldier for your idol Dementia Don… You need to start Hammering this issue…You need to avoid at all costs ever even acknowledging the mutual exclusiveness of the tow positions… while at the same time you need to have full command of both issues…

    it won’t be easy…but I have confidence in you…

  18. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    28. September 2016 at 11:31

    Harding… You know the next debate is a town hall style setting…

    I bet you know that Trumps only hope is to get the crowd to win the debate for him…

    I just told you how to help trump do that… don’t forget, The music to the ears of so many misogynist of the alt R…

    It’s Trumps’ most tell’s it like it is” advice…

    Women : “You Have To Treat Them Like Shit”.

    You have your orders from your daddy…

  19. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    28. September 2016 at 11:51

    Plucky, You said:

    “The other thing to remember is that newsmedia are all literary types. To them, “strong argument” is purely a matter of rhetoric.”

    This is much more sensible than the tired arguments that came before it.

    Ravi, I’ll do a post.

    Christian, That’s a silly argument. Klein is saying it’s not the media’s job to talk about who’s winning in terms of style (the voters can see that), but rather to evaluate the arguments. Are they TRUE? Don’t undecided voters want to know whether any of this is true? Ask them. “Heh undecided voter, do you want to elect the guy who shoots 100 lies at the top of his lungs, or the quieter candidate who is right” You might be surprised by what voters say.

    mbka, Interesting. I did not see the debate, so I can’t comment. On Hillary, she’s much further away from the libertarian wing of the Dems than Obama—that’s probably why I don’t like her. She’s also more dishonest than average for a politician, but still within the normal distribution (unlike Trump)

  20. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    28. September 2016 at 12:54

    @msgkings, right after Trump’s New Hampshire TRiUMPh:

    “Neither Sanders nor Trump will be nominated. Kinda wish they were though, then Bloomberg can run and we have a choice among 3 old white loudmouth New York guys.”

    “I’ll take that bet. Not sure how to collect, but let’s just go for bragging rights. We’re both going to be around in July I’m sure.”

    Any remarks now?

  21. Gravatar of Gary AndersonAnderson Gary AndersonAnderson
    28. September 2016 at 12:59

    Art Deco, Hillary is likely a crook, but like Sumner says, within normal distribution, but I never saw that bell curve. i would like to see it. But Hillary came across as being far more intelligent than Trump. I watched the entire debate.

    Trump came out firing in the beginning but they were lies. When he finally was forced to listen to Hillary who was punching him in the mouth, he lost momentum and looked like a guy who wish he was somewhere else.

    Maybe he longed for being with that 13 year old girl he is accused of raping and beating in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein, (probably why the NYC court is ignoring the statute of limitations for simple child sex).

  22. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    28. September 2016 at 13:25

    @E. Harding:

    What is there to say? Like 99% of the rest of the country including Trump himself I didn’t think he had any chance when things got started. My remarks are, I was wrong.

    Not sure what your point is bringing it up, but good for you. That doesn’t make him a good choice to be president or anything.

  23. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    28. September 2016 at 13:38

    Dude; these remarks of yours were after he won New Hampshire by more than the polling indicated and both Scott the psychiatrist and I had put his odds of winning the nomination at 60%. This is Douthat-level obliviousness. The most important period, IMHO, in Trump’s rise to the nomination was the trial-by-fire period of October-December that took down so many candidates before the Iowa Caucuses in 2012. After Trump got through that, I didn’t think there was anything obvious that could stop him. There wasn’t.

  24. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    28. September 2016 at 13:56

    The joys of retconning.

    Trump announced his candidacy on 16 June 2015, and placed second (to Jeb Bush) in a poll conducted from the 21st to the 23d of June. He took the lead in a poll conducted from the 9th to the 12th of July 2015. There was a clutch of polls conducted around October 2015 which had Dr. Carson with a small lead, and a solitary February 2016 poll which had Cruz in the lead. Otherwise, Trump led every poll (and, of course, won 3/4 of the contests).

  25. Gravatar of mbka mbka
    28. September 2016 at 14:59

    Scott,

    on policy, no contest – I dislike her contents. But I realize that on domestic / trade, she defends whatever contents she is forced to defend, mainly because of what Bernie did. I don’t think she has much of a choice but the flavor du jour these days. If you look at international, she is probably more in line with what she truly believes (if any). But at the end of the day, for this position, it is about her politician skills, not specific contents. The contents are more in the hands of congressional committees.

    BTW I also thought, oddly, that Hillary was far more aggressive on Trump than him on her, during the first 20 minutes. While he was whining ‘they take our jobs, they take our monnie, they take our wimmen’ style.

    Art,

    totally off topic, besides, they’re not up for the function of choir boy. In the 90s, people went to jail, for years, so they wouldn’t have to speak under subpoena against the Clintons in court. A breathtaking record of loyalty if you ask me. What inspires this kind of loyalty? It’s got to be something.

  26. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    28. September 2016 at 15:31

    totally off topic, b

    You asked why people dislike her. You don’t want an answer, don’t ask the question.

    A breathtaking record of loyalty if you ask me.

    Looking forward to your next apologia for the Cosa Nostra.

  27. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    28. September 2016 at 15:43

    Both Trump and Clinton are members of the mafia, Art, but Trump is an unstable human being. He has the reactionary emotional behavior of a child. I think many people are starting to realize this.

  28. Gravatar of mbka mbka
    28. September 2016 at 15:46

    Art,

    one more thing w.r.t Hillary. 40 years in politics, 40 years of relentless attacks, 40 years of legal challenges, half the country hates her, and she’s still standing. She takes heat way more gracefully than Trump and has endured it way longer. Wonder how long he would last under that kind of political fire. He’s been scrutinized for what, a year now? And he’s still whining about being attacked. Give me a break.

  29. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    28. September 2016 at 17:07


    but rather to evaluate the arguments.

    At first this might sound good in theory (for some people, not for me) but then when you read those so-called “fact checks” they are often simple opinion pieces and hit jobs disguised as “reports”.

    Similar problems occur when moderators think they should take sides as well. I don’t think moderators and reporters should take sides. Moderators should moderate and reporters should report – in the most neutral way possible. Never take sides in this job, especially not when it’s for a so-called “good cause”.

  30. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    28. September 2016 at 17:18


    she’s still standing.

    I thought something similar during the debates. Hillary can be a very tough lady. That’s why those debates are so important to me. You get to know these people better. Politics is not so much about facts (for example because facts change). Politics is more about questions like: Are you tough enough? Can you stand up? Can you talk (politics is communication). Can you make deals? Can you bring people together? And from what I’ve seen so far I’m seeing more and more signs that Hillary could be a better leader than Obama for example. The US needs a tough leader as President, not someone like Obama who got a foreign policy regime that might be good for countries like Switzerland and the Vatican but surely not for the US, the last world power and the leading country of the free world.

  31. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    28. September 2016 at 17:42

    one more thing w.r.t Hillary. 40 years in politics, 40 years of relentless attacks, 40 years of legal challenges, half the country hates her, and she’s still standing.

    You seem to admire criminals who beat the rap.

    While we’re at it, she hasn’t suffered ‘relentless attacks’ for 40 years. She’s been chastised for genuine misconduct, starting with the Whitewater investigations.

  32. Gravatar of mbka mbka
    28. September 2016 at 19:04

    Christian List,

    agree with every word (your Hillary comment). Should we both see our respective doctors now? 😉

    Your moderator comment: I didn’t feel he was remarkable either way. Some smaller mishaps maybe, but nothing major. I was looking out for that because I do like to double check my own prejudices.

    Art Deco,

    a criminal is a person convicted of a crime. Hillary hasn’t been convicted of a crime, hence she is not a criminal. Technically, you are libeling her.

    An add-on to “still standing”. So Hillary has endured public scrutiny of her and her family, ranging from personal investments, her daughter’s face, and her husband’s privates. And when you see her in these hearings it is the epitomy of grace under pressure. She’s much better at that than at the forced hypocrisy of electoral politics. And then Trump. At something as seminal as a press conference. And unexpectedly. Gasp! A reporter! Gasp! Asks. A. Question. An unkind one. The enormity. The outrage. He has the guy thrown out and rants half an hour about the scandal it is. I mean, night and day. You can’t make this stuff up.

  33. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    28. September 2016 at 20:36

    Art, she is also a leader of the globalist cabal. But Trump would be as well. He has you deceived. He is a globalist all the way. The crucial difference is that Hillary is a calm negotiator and Trump is a child like mess. He is like an ADHD child without his medicine.

    He is a hater. He cannot be president. You are a pretty smart guy, Art, to be such a blind follower of a guy who could be Hitler. What the frick is wrong with you Art?

    Hasn’t Trump displayed enough instability for you? Does he need to go into the street and shoot someone? Oh, you probably would still support him because he says you would.

    You are so lacking in serious intelligence when it comes to Trump, a very dangerous individual. Even if he isn’t a rapist and a child beater, he is still a very dangerous man, a reactionary and a hater.

    If he goes ballistic over Iran, you think Putin will still be his friend? Not on your life. I would rather make peace with Iran than have Putin planning war in the middle east.

    At least Hillary takes the historical approach of real conservatives and real liberals, be tough towards Russia but don’t poke the bear. I hope she stays within those guidelines past, before the neocons and Cheney took over.

    As bad as W was, had Cheney been president, we could have been at war with Russia over Iran by now. Cheney called the deal with Iran madness. No, Art Dick Cheney is the one who is mad.

    And now Trump is like Cheney on steroids.

  34. Gravatar of BC BC
    28. September 2016 at 22:24

    “But despite this bias, they are actually helping Trump by trying to be ‘evenhanded’, to direct equal amounts of criticism both ways.”

    That might have been true in the Cronkite days, but today’s journalists, at least a large portion of them, believe that it is their job to shape public opinion and openly say so. They phrase this as “informing” or “explaining” issues to voters, but they really mean persuade voters to vote for the Democrat or more liberal candidate. The old journalistic ethic was objectivity: give candidates and their supporters equal time and let the voters decide. At most, journalists would be tougher on incumbents since they viewed themselves as watchdogs over government. The new generation believes that objectivity somehow allows conservatives to consistently fool voters using techniques that apparently liberals never seem to master for some reason. Thus, the new generation of journalists sees itself as watchdogs over conservatives, whether in government or in opposition.

    Trump won (politically) the debate on trade basically by forfeit. His ideas were nonsense economically, but Clinton could offer no rebuttal because she has flip-flopped on trade to appease the left. Remember, Trump has adopted far-left trade positions, not much different from Sanders, which is why neither Clinton nor the left-leaning media is able to criticize the substance of it. If they did so, they would be criticizing the left, which they’re not allowed to do. When Trump said NAFTA was one of the worst things to happen to the manufacturing industry, Clinton’s response was, “Well, that’s your opinion.” Yes, his opinion and the opinion of much of her own party. Trump didn’t win the trade debate so much as Clinton lost.

    My first thought while watching that portion of the debate was that we really needed Gary Johnson on that stage. He is the only candidate that offers a spirited defense of free trade.

  35. Gravatar of Ray Lopez Ray Lopez
    28. September 2016 at 23:16

    Sumner: “I wish the press would do its job, so I could get back to monetary policy.”

    Hubris. Only a couple of dozen people read this blog, so it hardly constitutes popular press. Hubris is typical of our host, elevated to stardom by the truly popular econ blogger Tyler Cowen, and it’s gone to his head. Sumner truly thinks he’s the blogger that saved the world, never mind capitalism, even mixed-state capitalism that we have today, is largely self-healing. Sumner even concedes in his last book that the Great Depression was over by 1934. Panics come and go, regardless of the money supply, which is neutral. The Depression of 1837 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837) lasted seven years and was self-healing, when the USA was essentially on a hard money (gold) standard.

  36. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    29. September 2016 at 14:36

    Ray, You have devoted much of your life to commenting on this blog. You must be quite a loser, to have nothing better to do with your time than demonstrate that you don’t even know AS/AD economics.

    You said:

    “Sumner even concedes in his last book that the Great Depression was over by 1934. ”

    Always good for a laugh.

  37. Gravatar of Joshua Joshua
    3. October 2016 at 07:29

    The media ought to point out when a candidate is stupidly, dangerously wrong (did they ever with Sanders’ anti-trade rhetoric?). But if in the primary you ignored that the critique by Trump, things are terrible and things are run by idiots who are letting China eat our lunch, you would not have predicted his success. And if you failed to identify that false claim as effective you wouldn’t have an effective response.

    If Clinton’s response to this is “I’ll let the fact-checkers get their engines revving up for that one” she could get trounced by Trump, wrong as he is.

    So if you interpret what the commentators are doing as urging the Clinton camp to have a better answer on these issues rather than ratifying the “strength” of the argument that doesn’t seem like pernicious even-handedness.

    Part of the reason Clinton’s answer is weak is she folded on the trade issue in the primary. Should the press run with “Clinton and Trump, both wrong on Trade”?

Leave a Reply