From
Glenn Greenwald at Salon:
The New York Times' David Brooks and Gail Collins had an online "conversation" with one another this week, and Brooks did an excellent job of explicitly demonstrating most everything that is relevant -- and destructive -- about the mentality of the standard Beltway journalist (h/t reader jm). In fact, much of what Brooks wrote about what he believes tracks almost completely the discussion I had with Jay Rosen on Bill Moyers' show last week regarding the rot of the American political press. First, there's this from Brooks:
What I’m really annoyed by, though, is the withdrawal of Tom Daschle. What are we, a nation of virgins? . . .
Of course, Obama asked for all this with his cynical promise to ban lobbyists from his administration. There’s a word for lobbyists: experts. Some are sleazy and many are quite admirable, but the idea of trying to run Washington without them is absurd.
To David Brooks, lobbyists are nothing more than "experts" who provide important and helpful insight to legislators as they earnestly try to craft laws in the public interest. Not only are lobbyists a positive influence, but they're actually indispensable. The fact that these so-called "experts" are paid by the wealthiest corporate factions to ensure that the laws Congress passes are designed to serve their narrow, insular interests -- and that this is accomplished by pouring money into the coffers of the very people who write the laws so that they're writing the laws that serve these interests -- never makes it into Brooks' understanding of this process. Thus, he is baffled that anyone would find lobbyist-domination of our political process to be at all objectionable.David Brooks is no favorite of mine. He's never been. Often, his columns seem incoherent to me, and trying to make sense of them turns my brain into mush. I stopped reading him a long time ago. But he's clear enough in his idiotic description of corporate lobbyists as "experts". Experts in what? In getting legislation passed that will benefit their clients who pay them money. That's where their expertise lies. They may very well know a good deal about the subject of the legislation, but their loyalty is to the clients who pay them.
When former lobbyists serve in the administration of an elected official, how easy is it to completely break away from loyalty to former clients and serve the best interests of the the citizens of the country? I'd wager that it's not easy.
Obama works against the culture of the Beltway. The culture embraces the elected officials, the corporate lobbyists, and the top tier DC press and pundits in a cozy circle. They attend the same dinner and cocktail parties and exchange insider gossip. I doubt that group of press people could function outside the circle, because they've long forgotten how to, you know, gather news. They're well paid, most certainly not of the hungry-reporter species.
My main objection to Tom Daschle was not the tax problem. That can happen to anyone, right? Except if one the little people make a "mistake" of a couple of hundred dollars, the IRS could be on them rather quickly. It's his being part of the corporate lobby culture of cars with drivers, salaries in the millions, etc. that caused me to want him gone. That he actually lobbied for the health care industry seemed significant to me. We must believe him capable of quickly shedding the lobbyist skin and donning the skin of a fierce advocate of ordinary people, who so badly need a fix for health care in the US.
Are we to believe that lobbyists are the only folks with expertise?
Greenwald appeared with Jay Rosen on
Bill Moyers Journal. He quotes Rosen:
JAY ROSEN: Well, what doesn't get considered, Bill, is that there could be anything radically wrong with Washington. That the entire institution could be broken. That there are new rules necessary. That idea, that the institutions of Washington have failed and need to be changed, doesn't really occur to the press, because as Glenn said, they're one of those institutions. And they're one of the ones that failed.Yes.
Read the conversation between David Brooks and Gail Collins at the link. There Brooks exposes the weakness of his brain function from which come the incoherent columns. Obama ruined his honeymoon, folks. Shall we all send him sympathy cards?
I'm grinding my teeth as I write. I'd best end the post while my teeth are intact.
UPDATE: Post edited to clarify that I referred to corporate lobbyists in the post. Thanks to Bruce C, who works for the American Library Association, for reminding me in the comments that not all lobbying is a bad thing.
