Why We Need Strict Separation of Punditocracy and State, David Gergen Edition

Brian Doherty | August 14, 2009

David Gergen, the insider's insider's insider (who has apparently worked for every presidential administration of the past 175 years except the second Cleveland term) is all over the new issue of Rolling Stone, musing on whether Obama has been unutterably wonderful, surprisingly amazing, or even slightly disappointingly fantastically magical, along with Paul Krugman and Michael Moore. (Moore loves the prez, but to a large degree because he thinks he doesn't mean anything he appears to have said or done so far. Seriously.)

The whole thing isn't online, alas, (here's a sample though) and I don't even particularly recommend you read it, though Moore twisting himself around to believe Obama must ultimately be trying to do everything Moore would want him to do no matter what it looks like is sadly amusing. I'm a little let down on Moore; seems to me he could have gone either way on Obama, and to see him decide to toss his reputation on the wagon is a little depressing, but I guess he figured his audience was to a large degree running to Obama and as their leader, he'd better follow.

But did want to call attention to one telling quote from David Gergen, on whether he's disappointed the administration isn't living up to its promises about ending indefinite unconvicted detentions:

I know Leon Panetta, and these must be wrenching decisions for him. If he comes down a certain way--that we've got these incorrigibles who are dangerous, and we have to detain him--then I tend to give the benefit of the doubt.

Not nearly as wrenching as it is for the people detained, Gergy baby. (That's what his pal Leon calls him, so I hear.) A 50 percent discount rate of seriousness, at least, should be applied to every former government employees' musings on politics.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|8.14.09 @ 11:01AM|#

I'm a little let down on Moore; seems to me he could have gone either way on Obama, and to see him decide to toss his reputation on the wagon is a little depressing

Reputation for what?

Xeones|8.14.09 @ 11:03AM|#

but I guess he figured his audience was to a large degree running to Obama and as their leader, he'd better follow.

I chuckled out loud. Fuck Michael Moore, yo.

|8.14.09 @ 11:08AM|#

I tend to give the benefit of the doubt.

Because he is, as we all know, one of the Right People.

though Moore twisting himself around to believe Obama must ultimately be trying to do everything Moore would want him to do no matter what it looks like is sadly amusing.

Hey, look, Michael Moore really is a regular guy! After all, that's what people of all ideological persuasions convinced themselves about Obama when he was campaigning. "He doesn't really mean what he says about X, he's just pandering but he secretly agrees with me." Michael Moore's no worse than most. Just hasn't been disillusioned yet.

<strike>strike through</strike|8.14.09 @ 11:14AM|#

R C Dean | August 14, 2009, 11:01am | #
"to see him [Moore] decide to toss his reputation on the wagon is a little depressing"

Reputation for what?

For being a lefty propagandist? Eating too much? Wearing that stupid baseball cap?

yo|8.14.09 @ 11:16AM|#

Fuck Michael Moore, yo.

No thank you.

|8.14.09 @ 11:17AM|#

It's good to know that on core issues, the Democrats are consistent on one thing: Fuck 'em if they get in their way to total control. Much like their opponents.

Xeones|8.14.09 @ 11:18AM|#

No thank you.

Fascist.

|8.14.09 @ 11:19AM|#

And those of us who don't have a close personal ~~fuck-buddy arrangement~~ friendship with Leon Panetta need to shut up and obey, it seems.

TallDave|8.14.09 @ 11:21AM|#

The best part of the Michael Moore thing is that the White House is now admitting they made a secret deal with Big Pharma. Apparently the reasoning there is that Obama is going to double-cross them.

It's disturbing how Obama manages to be all things to all people.

|8.14.09 @ 11:25AM|#

I met Panetta during my White House fellowship. He didn't strike me as a guy who gets wrenched by decision making.

|8.14.09 @ 11:26AM|#

Fascist.

I was at a gold dealer yesterday (guess why?) and had to wait in line behind a morbidly obese family who were bringing in every piece of metal in their house, apparently. While they were dumping out a box of screws or something, the dealer was explaining that the swastika and the fasces were originally positive symbols of unity and strength, and continued to say that "they're still on our coins today."

Presumably he was talking about the fasces on the back of the dime, but it wasn't clear whether he also meant that the *swastika* is on our coins today. I was going to say something sarcastic, but in times like these you don't want to irk your local numismatist.

Barry-O the ASL Ape (transcrib|8.14.09 @ 11:28AM|#

BARRY-O LOVE LOVE THINGS PERSON LOVE

BARRY-O SAD SAD THINGS PERSON SAD SAD BANANA

|8.14.09 @ 11:30AM|#

Fuck you for making that racist comment.

Fuck you doubly for making me laugh at it.

EJM|8.14.09 @ 11:30AM|#

(Moore loves the prez, but to a large degree because he thinks he doesn't mean anything he appears to have said or done so far. Seriously.)

I assume you mean that Moore thinks that Obama doesn't mean anything that he (Obama) appears to have said or done so far. That said, the other possible meanings are funnier.

<strike>strike through</strike|8.14.09 @ 11:34AM|#

in times like these you don't want to irk your local numismatist

I feel the same way about that sausage-maker I sell my blood to.

hmm|8.14.09 @ 11:34AM|#

Micheal Moore had a reputation worth considering?

Matt F|8.14.09 @ 11:37AM|#

What I would really like to read now is Doherty attempting to "outline" Michael Moore's reputation. Might rival Tolkien's level of invention.

|8.14.09 @ 11:43AM|#

I thought this was pretty obvious (and I know that most of this audience doesn't even have the inch of interest in Moore that I do) but, you know, the reputation as the hard-prog-lefty outside the system truth to power dude. Who's really fat. I happen to hang out with lots of actual hard leftists, and watching them fall in line with a Grand Leader who doesn't actually share most of their hopes and beliefs has been creepy and depressing.
I've written on this point before, just not about Moore:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/130081.html

The Gobbler|8.14.09 @ 11:43AM|#

"Reputation for what?"

I wondered the same thing.

Spoonman|8.14.09 @ 11:47AM|#

Brian, I think people know his reputation, they just don't see it as positive; they're being mainly facetious.

¢|8.14.09 @ 11:47AM|#

Moore's way of loving the Leader better fits what's known, and presumes fewer unknown or known-false things, than Gergen's or Krugman's.

Tony|8.14.09 @ 11:48AM|#

Wonder how many in here have won an Oscar.

The Michael Moore trashing is funny considering his "reputation" is as a right-wing bogeyman more than anything else. If you people bothered to watch his films you'd find he was more libertarian than all the right-wingers who trash him.

The Gobbler|8.14.09 @ 11:48AM|#

"but, you know, the reputation as the hard-prog-lefty outside the system truth to power dude"

Can you be seated next to Carter at the Dem convention and still be considered "outside the system"? Words have meanings, Mr. Doherty.

TallDave|8.14.09 @ 11:52AM|#

the reputation as the hard-prog-lefty outside the system truth to power dude.

It's a fair point. I think too many of us read that as though Moore had a positive reputation outside the far left.

But I think a lot of the "anti-system" was just due to the fact the far left has never really had much power in his lifetime. Even in 1993-1994 they had Clinton the free-trader, which alienated many of them, esp. the anti-globalist Moore. But as of Jan 2009, the good guys ARE the system as far as his crowd is concerned.

|8.14.09 @ 11:52AM|#

I happen to hang out with lots of actual hard leftists,

COSMOTARIAN!!!!

Everybody run!

Tony,

The Rush Limbaugh trashing is funny considering his "reputation" is as a left-wing bogeyman more than anything else. If you bothered to listen to his radio show daily you'd find he was more libertarian than all the left-wingers who trash him.

See how this works? And you wonder why we pox houses around here.

Don't feed the troll. Please. It is just not worth it.

the inch of interest in Moore that I do)

NTTAWWT

|8.14.09 @ 11:53AM|#

Not pointed at you PL, just trying to get it out as a PSA.

|8.14.09 @ 11:54AM|#

David Gergen sucks mule nuts. Anyone who doesn't suck mule nuts would understand he has the duty to punch Krugman in the nether beard if given half a chance.

Sal Paradise|8.14.09 @ 11:56AM|#

"If he comes down a certain way--that we've got these incorrigibles who are dangerous, and we have to detain him--then I tend to give the benefit of the doubt."

As well you should, we have the Right People in charge now. Didn't you get that memo?

Barry-O the ASL Ape (transcrib|8.14.09 @ 11:56AM|#

BARRY-O LOVE LOVE T-O-N-Y ON FACE MESSY MESSY

T-O-N-Y KISS KISS KISS BARRY-O BANANA

|8.14.09 @ 11:57AM|#

Unfortunately, I think this troll runs on photosynthesis.

|8.14.09 @ 11:58AM|#

Wonder how many in here have won an Oscar.

I haven't won any. So?
How many elections have you won Tony? Does this disqualify you from criticizing politicians?

Dumbshit.

|8.14.09 @ 11:59AM|#

"Tony | August 14, 2009, 11:48am | #

Wonder how many in here have won an Oscar.

The Michael Moore trashing is funny considering his "reputation" is as a right-wing bogeyman more than anything else. If you people bothered to watch his films you'd find he was more libertarian than all the right-wingers who trash him."?

Hey Tony! Glad you stopped by. I suspect you are here to admit you were wrong yesterday when you claimed that as Dem numbers decline Republican numbers are remaining flat. You remember don't you? The Aug 13 Rasmuessen poll I linked to that showed that you have a head full of cat shit?

-------------------
I do so love stupid people!

Generic Congressional Ballot
Republicans Maintain Lead Over Democrats on Generic Ballot

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 42% would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

Here's what it was 5 days after the inaguration:

01-25-09 Dem 42% GOP 35%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot
----------------------------------------
Care to comment?

|8.14.09 @ 12:00PM|#

the reputation as the hard-prog-lefty outside the system truth to power dude

WTF? "Outside the system" should be replaced with "Democrat partisan", and "truth to power" should be modified with "only if the power has an (R) after its name".

Lest anyone mistake my offhand comment to mean I'm a big fan of MM, here are my olden times pieces for Reason on Bowling for Columbine:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32347.html

And Fahrenheit 911:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/33648.html

|8.14.09 @ 12:01PM|#

watching them fall in line with a Grand Leader who doesn't actually share most of their hopes and beliefs

Too strong, Brian Doherty. Say "watching them fall in line with a Great Leader who hasn't actually acted according to most of their hopes and beliefs."

Trying to determine what any politician "actually believes" is difficult and near useless, particularly when that politician is successfully elected and trying to be re-elected.

If you presume that you know what beliefs President Obama "actually shares," then you're making the same mistake as Michael Moore from another direction.

|8.14.09 @ 12:03PM|#

Don't try to sway our opinions with your puny "facts" Doherty.

|8.14.09 @ 12:04PM|#

Doherty,
From my experience, paleos, "real" libertarians, rothbardians really don't hang out with a lot of lefties. I hang out with a couple friends who do come from the leftist side of things but these people absolutely are NOT Obama supporters as they are fairly widely read and are not naive mouth breathers...however they probably still like Chomsky foreign policy critique as much or more than Rothbard's, but more because it feels more natural to them, not because they don't read Rothbard.

The leftist I know who actually like Obama I cannot stomach. I am only around them because of work/family issues...not by choice.

I can understand wanting the challenge of trying to help these people, but really? how do you justify this to yourself? find some better friends. Aren't you sickened by their willful ignorance?

|8.14.09 @ 12:06PM|#

John Thacker--Yes, that's right. Your way of expressing it is more accurate than mine.

Tomcat1066|8.14.09 @ 12:09PM|#

Lest anyone mistake my offhand comment to mean I'm a big fan of MM, here are my olden times pieces for Reason on Bowling for Columbine:

Don't try to hide your man-love for Moore behind your "facts" Doherty. We all know the deep affection you have for the "big guy".

You've got a real doll version of him, don't you?

|8.14.09 @ 12:09PM|#

Michael Moore a libertarian?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !

HA!

Anyway,
http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=1303

You see, Obama is LeBron and you are the Clippers. The Clippers know that LeBron is going to fake right and go left, but it doesn't matter - they're still the Clippers and he's LeBron and he's going to make the basket.

Tony|8.14.09 @ 12:11PM|#

And you wonder why we pox houses around here.

Because as your post amply demonstrated you're simple-minded and don't feel the need to bother with nuance. There's absolutely no difference between Rush and his relationship with the right and Moore and his relationship with the left. Nope, none whatsoever.

Xeones|8.14.09 @ 12:19PM|#

There's absolutely no difference between Rush and his relationship with the right and Moore and his relationship with the left. Nope, none whatsoever.

In attempted snark, you have finally achieved honesty.

|8.14.09 @ 12:20PM|#

You've got a real doll version of him, don't you?

Can you imagine how much that monstrous thing would weigh? and cost? The recharge canisters for the "constant farting" feature would bankrupt you trying to maintain realism.

Tony|8.14.09 @ 12:22PM|#

EAP,

Generic polls have very little value. Why don't you look at polls that compare actual Democratic congressmen to actual Republican congressmen and see what they say.

Anyway here's one from Aug. 10

WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 (Xinhua) -- The Democratic party has become less popular with U.S. voters but are still more popular than the Republicans, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday.

Fifty-two percent of those surveyed hold a favorable opinion of the Democratic party, down six points from February, while 41 percent say they have a positive view of the Republican party, up just two points from February.

According to the poll, 44 percent say the country's better off when the Democrats control Congress, 10 percent more than those who say it would be better off had the Republicans controlled Congress.

Analysts said the results show that although Democrats dented their popularity due to the heated debates on economic and health-care policies, Republicans seemed to be unable to capitalize on the moment.

The survey was conducted July 31-August 3, with 1,136 adult Americans questioned by telephone.

Xeones|8.14.09 @ 12:23PM|#

Fuck you for that mental image while i'm eating, SugarFree. Christ.

Rimfax|8.14.09 @ 12:25PM|#

Tony,

Ad hominem much?

Xeones|8.14.09 @ 12:25PM|#

WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 (Xinhua)

HAHAHAHA holy crap. Well played, whoever created Tony. Xinhua? Really.

|8.14.09 @ 12:30PM|#

Tony | April 22, 2009, 12:18pm | #

This is relevant how? Polls show most people believe in a lot of fairy tale nonsense.

|8.14.09 @ 12:31PM|#

Tony,

In reality, no, there's not much difference. Both are primary entertainers that play to the not-so-noble impulses in their audiences. Both are very lose with the facts. Both commit the sin of worrying about the motes in their enemies' eyes rather than the the beams in their allies'.

You guys are totally stupid about the scope and importance of Limbaugh's influence on the right, let alone on this crowd. And I'm not a listener, either, because I have better things to do with my time.

On this plunge in Obama's and the Democrats' popularity: No one knows better than libertarians that we have a strict dichotomy in this country. Disgust with one party means votes for the other, even if the other is almost as despised.

Tony,

Rasmussen polls likely voters. CNN polled all Americans. Based on likely voter polls, the Dems have a lot to worry about in 2010.

Fuck you for that mental image while i'm eating, SugarFree. Christ.

Your stomach is a pussy.

|8.14.09 @ 12:32PM|#

Xeones, it is quoting a CNN poll.

Anyway, why not look at summaries of many polls?

Per the usual, Republicans do better on registered voter than all adult polls, and even better on likely voter polls. (Though the 2008 Presidential election showed more Dem than Rep enthusiasm.)

The Congressional vote preferences line up:
Rasmussen- R+4
NP: R+1
GWU/Battleground: D+3
CNN/Gallup: D+6

The three more pro Republican polls are all likely voters, the CNN/Gallup is only registered voters.

|8.14.09 @ 12:33PM|#

"Why don't you look at polls that compare actual Democratic congressmen to actual Republican congressmen and see what they say."

How about this?:

In June, Arlen Specter led Pat Toomey by 11 points: Toomey 39% -- Specter 50%. But that was nothing that a little talk about Obamacare couldn't fix. Now, Rasmussen shows Toomey leading Specter by 12 points: Toomey 48% -- Specter 36%. According to Rasmussen, "In Pennsylvania, 42% of voters support the [Democrats' health-care] plan while 53% are opposed."

Toomey leads Joe Sestak, Specter's Democratic primary challenger who's running to Specter's left, by 8 points -- 43% to 35%.

Or this?

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that a poll sponsored by supporters of Nevada Republican party chairwoman Sue Lowden shows that she leads Harry Reid 48 to 42 in a matchup.

When you add in the Generic poll, It's pretty clear you are full of feline excrement.

The Feline Excrement in Tony\'|8.14.09 @ 12:40PM|#

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD LET ME OUT OF THIS PLACE!!!

Xeones|8.14.09 @ 12:45PM|#

Xeones, it is quoting a CNN poll.

True, but the "Xinhua" is a tell. He could've just quoted the CNN report without that bit. No, i am now of the belief that Tony is a Neil-esque performance art piece and should be treated accordingly.

The Feline Excrement in Tony\'|8.14.09 @ 12:50PM|#

@ xeones

Damn straight.

Tomcat1066|8.14.09 @ 12:52PM|#

Can you imagine how much that monstrous thing would weigh? and cost? The recharge canisters for the "constant farting" feature would bankrupt you trying to maintain realism.

For those with Moore Man-Love syndrome, cost is no concern.

Ask Tony, I bet he can relate ;)

Michael Ejercito|8.14.09 @ 12:56PM|#

Now, Rasmussen shows Toomey leading Specter by 12 points: Toomey 48

Toomey would have to run against Specter, which is as likely to happen as a pedophile Nazi nithing appplying for a job.

The Angry Optimist|8.14.09 @ 1:00PM|#

John Thacker - I am fine with imparting what the President believes from his actions. Sort of a "revealed preference" kind of thing.

|8.14.09 @ 1:27PM|#

I am fine with imparting what the President believes from his actions. Sort of a "revealed preference" kind of thing.

Ah, but the only revealed preference you can infer is what the President believes that the electorate believes or will let him get away with. The analogy to revealed preference doesn't work in politics, whether voting or governing, because you're using other people's money. See Bryan Caplan's Myth of the Rational Voter for a fuller explication of the argument.

But on another level, I'd argue that there's no point in bother to determine a politician's "real beliefs" anyway. Predicting future actions, sure, there's merit.

Bigg Blakk Dikk|8.14.09 @ 1:39PM|#

"Toomey would have to run against Specter, which is as likely to happen as a pedophile Nazi nithing appplying for a job."

It's a shame you when blind before the end of the post:

"Toomey leads Joe Sestak, Specter's Democratic primary challenger who's running to Specter's left, by 8 points -- 43% to 35%."

|8.14.09 @ 1:51PM|#

But on another level, I'd argue that there's no point in bother to determine a politician's "real beliefs" anyway.

I would start by saying a politician's only real beliefs are a belief in his own entitlement to perks and privilege, and belief that any means in justified to reach that end. At that point, other "beliefs" are reduced to mere conveniences of the moment.

Mike Laursen|8.14.09 @ 2:32PM|#

Pundits? The word, whore, comes to mind, but I don't mean to insult actual sex workers.

|8.14.09 @ 3:02PM|#

No, i am now of the belief that Tony is a Neil-esque performance art piece and should be treated accordingly.

Yep. I think he's joe, actually.

Tony|8.14.09 @ 3:10PM|#

Hey I'm admittedly partisan. Why do you libertarians care who picks up seats in 2010, to the extent of selectively citing polls that confirm your hope for the GOP? Aren't both parties evil?

The Angry Optimist|8.14.09 @ 3:12PM|#

Tony - because only authoritarians such as yourself think one-party rule is awesome?

Tony|8.14.09 @ 3:13PM|#

I think one-party rule has generally been better for this country than gridlock, as long as that party is the Democrats.

T|8.14.09 @ 3:23PM|#

I think one-party rule has generally been better for this country than gridlock, as long as that party is the Democrats.

Well, at least you admit you're a partisan hack.

Tomcat1066|8.14.09 @ 3:33PM|#

"I think one-party rule has generally been better for this country than gridlock, as long as that party is the Democrats."

Meanwhile, I'm really OK with gridlock. If they're gridlocked, they're not fucking shit up.

Tony|8.14.09 @ 3:59PM|#

Well, at least you admit you're a partisan hack.

Well I come to that viewpoint from a policy perspective. It's not my fault the Republicans are totally corrupt and a danger to civilization.

T|8.14.09 @ 4:17PM|#

Well I come to that viewpoint from a policy perspective. It's not my fault the Republicans are totally corrupt and a danger to civilization.

Ahh, so you listen to the bullshit the parties spout as opposed to watching what they actually do. Got it.

|8.14.09 @ 4:22PM|#

Worked out reall well for Jimmy Carter, huh?

T|8.14.09 @ 4:30PM|#

Worked out reall well for Jimmy Carter, huh?

Since he only lasted one term, I'd say it worked out better for all of us.

Michael Ejercito|8.14.09 @ 6:00PM|#

For Toomey to run against Specter, Specter would have to win the Democratic Party against a genuine Democrat .

The Libertarian Guy|8.15.09 @ 3:02PM|#

"Well I come to that viewpoint from a policy perspective. It's not my fault the Republicans are totally corrupt and a danger to civilization."

Oooh, so close, Tony! All you had to do was say "It's not my fault the Republicans *and Democrats* are totally corrupt and a danger to civilization" to win the completely-correct prize.

But you still win the one-year supply of Rice-A-Roni, the Nancy Pelosi treat. (tm)

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements