Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum, trying to make sense of the story last Saturday, wrote that, “what we really need is for some longtime Michigan reporter to weigh in.” As far as I can tell, that still hasn’t really happened. There have been plenty of blog posts (here, here, here, here, here, and here, for example) and commentary pieces, but no authoritative reported account I’ve seen that could sort this story out for someone who came to it after seeing Maddow’s show.
It’s understandable that traditional statehouse reporters might be unwilling to take on story assignments that amount to following up on a national broadcaster who has a clear political point of view—especially when they’re keenly aware of the shortcomings in her show’s reporting. Pluta, for one, sees Maddow as operating in wholly different realm than he does: “Is it her job to tell the entire story?” he said to me. “I don’t know. Or is she supposed to lead the view to a particular point of view?”
Pluta could have told Maddow that the events leading to her “scoop” reflected “an incremental advancement of a culture that’s been in place since 1963,” as much as a sudden coup. He also pointed out that back when the 90-day provision was put in place, legislative sessions were much shorter, so there was less incentive to resort to “immediate effect.” The insider knowledge that he and other Statehouse reporters, like Livengood, possess would have bolstered Maddow’s reporting.
On the other hand, the fact that legislative railroading has become standard practice for both political parties does not make it consistent with the state constitution, and just because “this is how things are done” does not make something un-newsworthy. Michigan’s courts will ultimately rule on the legality of the “immediate effect” practice. But Maddow’s position as someone who wasn’t immersed in the day-to-day “spats” of the legislature (combined, to be sure, with her politics) led her to put a sudden spotlight on an issue that may have been too endemic to be visible to insiders.
On her Monday night segment, Maddow vowed to stay on the story playing out in Michigan. I hope she does: an outsider’s eye on the state government can offer a valuable perspective on what seem to be dubious governing principles. But Maddow must bring much more skepticism and restraint to her story, and she would be wise to tap into the deep knowledge held by Michigan’s Statehouse press corps: by obscuring basic facts, she’s undermining herself.
At the same time, Michigan’s reporters should acknowledge Maddow’s influence, and provide a timely and comprehensive account of the story for those who want more depth in the wake of her broadcasts. And while it is easy—and important—to critique Maddow for her errors, Michigan’s journalists might also acknowledge where she is right: that this is a story that resonates beyond election-year politicking.
One thing that also must be checked is how was the business of the Michigan House conducted under the democrats?
Did Michigan democrats introduce partisan and radical legislation which provoked Republicans to ask for roll calls to justify immediate effect and did those calls get ignored?
Because the on the national and state level republicans have
a) been routinely pushing radical legislation
b) been routinely using exceptional measures to achieve legislative goals
c) been routinely ignoring procedure in order to get what they want through.
Fallows has called examples of this nullification
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/a-process-that-is-running-out-of-control-the-new-nullification-crisis/249754/
And this kind of thing isn't new. It was present all through the time when the republicans controlled power in all three branches, using their power to push out legislative input from the minority and to demand that their initiatives be passed without obstruction. It is present now, for instance when their amendments on the healthcare bill were accepted without challenge and YET they still sought to filibuster and debate. They don't care about governing or negotiating, they care about winning.
Republicans on the state and national level have become very disenchanted with the democratic process since they've learned to exploit the aggression of social conservative voters and the money of libertarian conservative donors.
They don't need to appeal to majorities and therefore they don't act like participants in a majority determined process. This isn't democracy, this is warfare.
Why? Because modern conservatives are authoritarian.
"Authoritarian leaders do not govern when they control the apparatus of government; rather, they rule. And given their worldview, they rule from either the hard or radical right...
Authoritarianism is, by its nature, anti-democratic. One look at the House under Republican rule shows how authoritarian behavior has distorted the deliberative processes of this legislative chamber. Under GOP rule, leaders have represented the interest of the Republican Party, and have run the place as if the Democrats who represent over half the country did not exist. For good reason, voters took control away from the GOP in 2006, and as the Party's members have done nothing to change their ways, we must all hope that voters keep sending the same message until Republicans choose to hear it, and to reconstitute themselves into a party capable of actually governing."
Unless you see republican action through this prism, you will not understand why they do the things they do. They don't want to talk, they don't give a frig about consensus, they want to rule and shout.
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 12 Apr 2012 at 08:05 PM
Under GOP rule, leaders have represented the interest of the Republican Party, and have run the place as if the Democrats who represent over half the country did not exist.
That would explain why Nancy Pelosi's first order of business on the first day of the 111th United States Congress was to overturn the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America which allowed minority parties to introduce amendments to any bill in the house and why the first thing Boehner did when he was swarn in as speaker was to reverse it.
Did Michigan democrats introduce partisan and radical legislation which provoked Republicans to ask for roll calls to justify immediate effect and did those calls get ignored?
Its like your boy Obama says: "elections have consequences".
#2 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 12 Apr 2012 at 08:43 PM
What does anti-democratic authoritarianism look like in practice? Let us review:
http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3079:goodbye-to-all-that-reflections-of-a-gop-operative-who-left-the-cult
"Ever since Republicans captured the majority in a number of state legislatures last November, they have systematically attempted to make it more difficult to vote: by onerous voter ID requirements (in Wisconsin, Republicans have legislated photo IDs while simultaneously shutting Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in Democratic constituencies while at the same time lengthening the hours of operation of DMV offices in GOP constituencies); by narrowing registration periods; and by residency requirements that may disenfranchise university students.
This legislative assault is moving in a diametrically opposed direction to 200 years of American history, when the arrow of progress pointed toward more political participation by more citizens. Republicans are among the most shrill in self-righteously lecturing other countries about the wonders of democracy; exporting democracy (albeit at the barrel of a gun) to the Middle East was a signature policy of the Bush administration. But domestically, they don't want those people voting.
You can probably guess who those people are."
What? What was that about the New Black Panthers again?
"Thus far, I have concentrated on Republican tactics, rather than Republican beliefs, but the tactics themselves are important indicators of an absolutist, authoritarian mindset that is increasingly hostile to the democratic values of reason, compromise and conciliation. Rather, this mindset seeks polarizing division (Karl Rove has been very explicit that this is his principal campaign strategy), conflict and the crushing of opposition."
Is any of this confusing to you people? Do you not get it yet? You cannot have bipartisan or centrist government with people who do not care about being involved in a democracy.
In this environment, this is what bipartisanship looks like.
"Give the Republicans nearly all of what they want, and they will grace your Rose Garden signing ceremony. All you need do is cut the heart out of what Democrats believe in and what the country needs."
It is only by making republicans pay and suffer for these tactics that this environment will change.
Media, that is your job.
You can't keep doing political journalism as George Packer described it:
"But political journalism—unlike war reporting—long ago stopped being about what is true or important. Sometime in the nineteen-eighties, reporters began covering politics like sports and entertainment. How many times and ways can you say that the Republican Party has descended into unreality and extremism before you lose your viewers and readers? On the other hand, there’s an endless appetite for stories about Santorum’s effort to reach out beyond his evangelical base, or Gingrich playing the expectations game in Iowa. This stuff is political candy."
If there is no cost to being a totalitarian when one is in power and being a militant secessionist the second one is out, then there is no incentive to be a statesman.
If you are not calling out republicans on their decades long authoritarianism or you are doing the old "well republicans burned a house down yesterday, but in the 1970's the democrats lit up cigarettes" shtick, you are cowards. What republicans are doing all over the country is radical and has been radical since they started authorizing torture and mass surveillance. It is up to you to stop the authoritarianism because most democrats are too gutless (which
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 12 Apr 2012 at 09:11 PM
Oh, Hai Mikey!
"That would explain why Nancy Pelosi's first order of business on the first day of the 111th United States Congress was to overturn the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America which allowed minority parties to introduce amendments to any bill in the house and why the first thing Boehner did when he was swarn in as speaker was to reverse it."
Not quite, and the republicans know it - which is why they aren't setting those rules back:
http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2011/1/4/2551/-Rules-changes-and-the-crying-game
You knew about that, right?
And the the republicans really REALLY have no reason to complain about their treatment in the minority:
http://www.alternet.org/story/49581/unhinged_republicans_can't_even_get_their_insults_straight/
"Its like your boy Obama says: "elections have consequences"."
a) My boy? What are you talking about?
b) "elections have consequences"? So it would have been awesome if the democrats mandated the Michigan state private sector to use union labor + serve tofu meals at lunch to immediate effect over the objections of the republican 5/12ths minority because "elections have consequences"? What are you talking about?
I hope it's tofu. Yum.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 12 Apr 2012 at 09:50 PM
November is coming, and the Gravy Train is ending.
The liberals know it, and this why they're crapping bricks, a la Maddow.
Now we just have to pay for the liberal stupidity that has ruined our schools, filled our prisons, and that has created an ignorant and dependent underclass, and maybe, just maybe, after weaning the dependent masses, we can save the American dream from the commie nonsense.
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 13 Apr 2012 at 12:27 AM
..."Now we just have to pay for the liberal stupidity that has ruined our schools"...
Like No Child Left Behind - started by Bush - you know, teaching to the test. Talk about dumbing down.
"...filled our prisons"... Yeah, the Calvinist ethos that says "punish, punish, those evil godless people who use drugs. No programs to lessen drug use, just punish (and reward corporations in the business. You're sooo obvious!
..."and that has created an ignorant and dependent underclass... You must mean Faux viewers, right???
..."after weaning the dependent masses"... Yeah the unemployed and the outsourced and the ones wrecked by the global meltdown caused by greedy bloodsuckers that you admire.
..."the American dream from the commie nonsense"...You must be at least ninety years old, senile and drooling. How else to explain your dementia. See your surgeon; the programming batteries you need are low in power.
#6 Posted by skeptic, CJR on Fri 13 Apr 2012 at 04:47 PM
Even though your cjr story made worthwhile and worthy points regarding local and national reporting vis a vis this issue I remain unconvinced that maddow "botched", "mishandled" or "overplayed" her hand, though it could have been smoother as she herself has admitted i.e. pointing out the use of this tactic on both sides of the aisle. However your call for her to have used on-the-ground, local reporting to provide context and depth to her story, while on its face worthy, doesn't seem to recognize a basic point: this was a 15 min segment (already pretty lengthy)within an hour long show. Such context and depth, while, yes, making the story fuller could very likely have made her broadcast longer, making I'm sure, O'Donnell a very unhappy camper. The bigger issue is why Michigan bloggers and reporters, with more space and less time constraints, didn't highlight this story before and at length. You describe it as "too endemic to be visible". OK. That just sounds to me like a euphemism for "asleep". However the most important point - one that your reporting does not address - and is the central point of all Ms. Maddow's in-total Michigan reporting, is that regardless of how many times Democrats used these exact tactics I have yet to see anywhere (if there is an example of such law on Dem side please point out) they used it to advance such ridiculously and breathtakingly anti-democratic, racist laws such as emergency manager and the upcoming voter id.
#7 Posted by John M, CJR on Sat 14 Apr 2012 at 06:37 PM
Rachel Maddow may be faulted for some errors. She is human. There is always another show in which to correct errors.
A better questions in the Big Picture always used is how many newspapers, television, radio,cable stations have a full time State Capitol reporter or a team?
State capitols are unique. Consider the fact that of all 50 state capitols only about ten percent in in the major city of the state, (Boston, Providence, Hartford, Atlanta, Denver, Phoenix, and Salt Lake City). Since news budgets are cut back the reporting on the state legislatures if frequently slighted.
This is a point to ponder. Much of the leglislation passed was not covered. Hence many who are not involved in politics are shocked SHOCKED, to discover legislation they don't like.
#8 Posted by David Reno, CJR on Wed 18 Apr 2012 at 11:27 AM