Campaign Desk

Comrade Obama?

Press fails to question McCain’s “Obama is a socialist” implication

• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Single page

Only in our screwy media culture can a candidate imply, on little evidence, that his opponent is a socialist, confident in the knowledge that the press won’t scrutinize the claim, or stop to ask him what the hell he’s talking about.

In an interview with The Kansas City Star yesterday, John McCain said of Barack Obama: “His voting record … is more to the left than the announced socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.” Asked whether he thinks Obama is a socialist, McCain replied: “I don’t know. All I know is his voting record, and that’s what people usually judge their elected representatives by.”

This morning, CNN.com, sensing controversy, transcribed that brief exchange into a news item.

There are, um, numerous problems here.

First, McCain, of course, wasn’t asked where his assessment of Obama’s voting record comes from. It’s likely, though, that he’s referring to the National Journal rankings, which found that Obama had the Senate’s most liberal voting record. But neither CNN nor the Star bothered to point out that those rankings have been challenged, persuasively, by numerous analysts. One of the votes that contributed to Obama’s “most liberal” ranking, for instance, was his support for a bill, proposed by Joe Lieberman, to establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity. Even National Journal’s editor has conceded that you should not rely exclusively on his magazine’s rankings to determine a candidate’s ideology—which is exactly what McCain, and therefore CNN and the Star, likely did in this case. Nor did either news outlet note that several other rankings put Obama much further down the list of “most liberal.”

But more fundamentally, neither news outlet independently tried to evaluate the validity of McCain’s implied charge. The obvious way to do that would be to examine Obama’s economic proposals (for instance, repealing the Bush tax cuts, which were aimed primarily at the wealthy, and instead providing a tax cut for 150 million working- and middle-class Americans), and then consider whether they meet the commonly understood definition of socialism, which Wikipedia describes as “various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services.” (They don’t.)

(It’s also worth noting that neither news outlet challenges the obviously mistaken idea that “socialist” means “really really liberal.” Senators vote on scores of issues that have nothing to do with economics. Support for abortion rights, or stem cell research, has nothing to do with socialism—Stalin criminalized abortion. But maybe it’s too much to expect this level of precision from political reporters.)

The larger point is this: about two minutes worth of close scrutiny would be enough to convince any reasonable observer that to suggest Obama is a socialist is to drain the term of any meaning. Everyone involved knows this, including McCain (which is why he settled for implying, rather than saying so outright.) But by the rules of today’s political press, the “news” is that McCain made an explosive-sounding attack. Whether that attack is substantively valid just isn’t relevant to reporters.

CJR

If you enjoy this kind of press criticism please consider a subscription to our magazine, Columbia Journalism Review—a deal via the Web site at $19.95.

To subscribe, to give CJR as a gift, to renew, or to check student and CJR in the Classroom rates, click here.

Comments

TDC

Fri 18 Jul 2008 04:31 PM

A case study in looking for a fire where there’s no smoke

There are, um, numerous problems here.

It’s likely, though, that he’s referring to the National Journal rankings, which found that Obama had the Senate’s most liberal voting record. But neither CNN nor the Star bothered to point out that those rankings have been challenged, persuasively, by numerous analysts.

First, why is it “likely” that he is referring to the National Journal rankings? Is this another example of your often used powers of clairvoyance? We could use others like the Club for Growth or Americans for Democratic Action. If by “numerous analysts” you mean Media Matters for America (one of your favorite go to sources), then yes “numerous analysts” have challenged this ranking.

One interesting thing about the National Journal rankings, if indeed McCain was referring to them and I am to defer to your powers of clairvoyance then he was, is that one of the “criticisms” of it is that it can be skewed the more often the congressman misses his votes. Why hasn’t the question “why has Barack Obama missed so many votes” even been raised?

But more fundamentally, neither news outlet independently tried to evaluate the validity of McCain’s implied charge.

No Zack, not his “implied” charge, but your “inferred” interpretation. There is a distinct difference between the two.

The obvious way to do that would be to examine Obama’s economic proposals (for instance, repealing the Bush tax cuts, which were aimed primarily at the wealthy,

Who pay nearly all the income taxes in the US

and instead providing a tax cut for 150 million working- and middle-class Americans),

Are upper income people not “working Americans”? That’s news to me?

Support for abortion rights, or stem cell research, has nothing to do with socialism—Stalin criminalized abortion. But maybe it’s too much to expect this level of precision from political reporters.)

Stalinism was a very different animal than socialism so please don’t go there.

The larger point is this: about two minutes worth of close scrutiny would be enough to convince any reasonable observer that to suggest Obama is a socialist is to drain the term of any meaning.

Excellent point Zack, I eagerly await your next “hard hitting, take no prisoners” dissection of the dozens of “George Bush and all Republicans are Fascists” books that have hit the stores in the past 6 years or so. But something tells me I shouldn’t hold my breath.

And speaking of Fascism and Socialism, where exactly does Obama's "civilian national security force" fall on the spectrum?

Circus Boy

Fri 18 Jul 2008 08:04 PM

Exactly: Apply TDC's criticism of Roth's column to TDC's criticism of Roth's column, and you have, uh, more smoke and no fire.

If by “numerous analysts” you mean Media Matters for America (one of your favorite go to sources), then yes “numerous analysts” have challenged this ranking.

Straw man aside, TDC refutes their own post:

Is this another example of your often used powers of clairvoyance?

TDC: Are upper income people not “working Americans”? That’s news to me?

Another straw man, since Roth said, "working and middle class". That's the thing about when you say two things: you don't just mean one.

The charge inferred by McCain, desperate to score points with the base that won't even vote for him, is that Obama is a socialist. The fact that conservatives won't concede that parts of capitalism are broken and any attempt to fix them changes our system of government is why the Republicans will lose heavily in November.

After all, Jim Bunting is calling the Federal Reserve socialist, and I'm not so sure what thread the Republicans think the economy should cling to. But they sure are spinning that thread mightily.

TDC

Fri 18 Jul 2008 08:47 PM

Okay... so you don't think McCain was alluding to the National Journal rankings. Your alternative is what?

Apparently you skimmed over the references for the Club for Growth and Americans for Democratic Action both of which place Obama as the most liberal senator.

Usually it’s a good idea to read something before providing feedback, it has the tendency of avoiding making you look like a fool.

The only recent book I can recall that was calling people "fascists" based upon their politics was Jonah Goldberg's book, "Liberal Fascism".

Do Chris Hedges, Naomi Wolf, Joe Conason, Chalmers Johnson, Thom Hartmann or Russell Mokhiber ring any bells?

Straw man aside, TDC refutes their own post:

Straw man? To point out an overreliance on MMFA for “media analysis” is very relevant.

The charge inferred by McCain,

No, no, that’s not how it works. The speaker implies, the listener infers, break out the dictionary next time. Hmm, I always figured liberals and elfty types would be better with the written word, considering the whole “liberal arts thing” but I suppose a LA degree aint what it used to be.

desperate to score points with the base that won't even vote for him, is that Obama is a socialist.

The base may not love him, but were a gonna vote for him just the same.

The fact that conservatives won't concede that parts of capitalism are broken and any attempt to fix them changes our system of government is why the Republicans will lose heavily in November.

Parts of capitalism are broken! Da comrade, the signs of falling profitability and the rise of class conflict is surely a sign that capitalism is in it final throws of crisis and all of its bourgeois excesse!

Talk like that makes me think the suicide rate is gonna skyrocket after the Obamessiah loses this fall.

Circus Boy

Fri 18 Jul 2008 09:59 PM

Funny, your grammar "lesson" may be true, but its just another way you avoid the point.

Yeah, your Media Matters insertion, which ironically reads the mind of Roth, was great. It's funny how easy it is to refute your own written words. And they said the scarecrow doesn't have a brain.

As for your prediction McCain is going to win, you must have not caught the 18 flubs he made just this week. Hold your nose, bubba.

Home,Jeeves

Sat 19 Jul 2008 04:21 PM

What did McCain say that was wrong? Obama's voting record is in fact more liberal by at least one measure than the Senate's one announced socialist. It's a simple fact, one that his supporters in the media don't want to own up to (and citing the left-wing Media Matters as a refutation is pretty funny too).

Last point: Someone insisting on precision in reporting like Roth really shouldn't turn around and call Communist Joseph Stalin a "socialist."

George Efwill

Sun 20 Jul 2008 02:23 AM

Gosh, McCain is right you know, Michelle keeps a bust of Marx in the Obama bedroom. Rush Limbaugh climbed in through their bathroom window after a couple of Vicodin last week and saw it. Iraq has followed us home and is hiding under our beds in Kansas, ready to strike! One hundred more years of war! The party that doesn't evolve is looking more desperate by the minute...