They Pay Wankers, Don't They?

Never before in my lifetime has the American people been more poorly served by its pundit class. I've previously written about the neo-con pseudointellectuals who got us into two losing wars against the people of Afghanistan and Iraq: Bill Kristol, Christopher Hitchens, David Brooks, Tom Friedman, etc. Because there is no God or at least no American culture of enforced accountability, all continue to draw paychecks for their worthless, discredited opinions.

But wankdom isn't confined to neo-cons. Michael Kinsley, currently writing a column for Time magazine, exposes the sloppy thinking that repeatedly gets the world's richest (and in some ways its coolest) into one utterly avoidable fiasco after another. Consider his column in the August 13th issue:

There is grim fun to be had, and many are having it, by reviewing what the pundits said back in 2002 and 2003 about the notion of going to war in Iraq and comparing it with what they are saying as they survey the results today. They've all changed their tunes, a little or a lot, with various degrees of contrition.

Not "all." Some of us got it right. Back in 2003 and 2002 and even 2001, the left—the real left, not the squishy soft liberals who play the left on TV—called Bush on his dictatorial tendencies, his lack of planning and the low odds of success in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Politicians, too, are under pressure to recant anything nice they may have said about the Iraq war--or, if they were Senators at the time, to apologize for their votes in favor. Some, like John Edwards, have done so. But one important voice was as wrong as any of them and now is among the most censorious about the way things have turned out. Yet this voice has never acknowledged its previous errors. In fact, no one expects it to do so, even though it is more responsible than any pundit for U.S. policy in Iraq. This is the voice of the citizenry, the American people.

Americans are unhappy with President George W. Bush right now. In the New York Times/CBS News poll, his approval rating dipped to 29% during July before nosing back up a point. Approval of Bush's handling of what is delicately called "the situation in Iraq" is only 25%. By 53% to 39%, we disapprove of the way he is handling the war on terrorism. "Looking back," 51% say that the U. S. "should ... have stayed out" of Iraq, while only 42% think the invasion was "the right thing." Two-thirds of Americans think our "efforts to bring stability and order to Iraq" are going somewhat or very badly, and the same fraction think we should withdraw in part or completely.

Dislike of opinion polls is one of the great clichés of American politics, but it's not clear exactly what people dislike. They dislike politicians who follow the opinion polls, and they dislike politicians who fail to follow the will of the people, as revealed in opinion polls. But the real problem with opinion polls is different: they reinforce the impression that everything is a matter of opinion, and all opinions are equally valid.

Although--or perhaps because--I manufacture opinions for a living, I am always amazed at the things people are willing to express opinions about.

I'm writing this early, and my coffee may not have kicked in quite as nicely as I might like, but there's something mighty hilarious about Kinsley claiming that he "manufactures" opinions. Maybe he thinks that's his job. But he's supposed to express opinions. It would also be nice if his opinions of what was going on were supplemented by largely accurate predictions of what was going to happen. That's his job too.

Is the "surge" working? Is there likely to be a terrorist attack in the next few months? Are "most of the insurgents in Iraq today ... under the command of Osama bin Laden"? These are not matters of opinion. The correct answer may be unknown (e.g., the success of the surge), or it may be known perfectly well (e.g., bin Laden does not control most of the Iraqi insurgents), but one thing the correct answer is not is a matter of opinion.

Even when getting it right, Kinsley gets it wrong. Bin Laden doesn't control any of Iraq's insurgents. According to everyone, even the Pentagon, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia doesn't take orders from Al Qaeda, the Pakistani-based umbrella group for various Islamist groups. The Iraqis took the name to fuck with us.

But in opinion polls, citizens are treated like gods, dispensing or withholding their "approval" on any basis they wish or none at all. They may give a President a green light to go to war (not that Bush needed it) and then condemn him for going when it turns out badly. Just after 9/11, Bush's approval rating was as high as 90%. Only 5% disapproved. In the spring of 2003, when Bush launched the war, deposed Saddam Hussein, occupied Iraq and declared victory, public approval of his conduct of the Iraq "situation" rarely dipped below 70%. As the "situation" went south, so did Bush's poll numbers, until now he faces snarling or sullen disapproval from two-thirds of the electorate.

Ninety percent of the electorate once approved of Bush's "handling" of terrorism. Now only 39% approve. That means at least 51%, or more than half of all Americans, used to support Bush on terrorism but don't anymore. You might say they have decided they were wrong, but opinion-poll democracy requires no such self-criticism. Political opinions are like old-fashioned airline tickets, with no change penalty.

The American people haven't "decided they were wrong" about Iraq. They've decided they were lied to. And they're right. I'm not going to recite all the Bush Administration quotes about mushroom clouds and anthrax and fighting "them" "there" and linking 9/11 to Saddam—something Bush continues to do all these years later. If you read the Rallblog, you know all that stuff. Criticize the American public for trusting their government to tell them the truth. Honestly, after Watergate and a million other examples, there's no reason for anyone to believe what a politician says. But let's not pretend that the public changed its mind because it's fickle and because the war is going badly. The war going badly is what proves that we were lied to; that was the very thing that was not supposed to happen.

The U.S. is now despised around the world because of the Iraq "situation." Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead as the result of our deliberate decision to invade and occupy another country with no immediate provocation. We reduced that country to ruin and chaos, and now we care only about how and how quickly we can get out of this mess we created.

This is not all the fault of the pundits or of "Washington" or of politicians. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq was scandalously unilateral, but it did in fact have the support of most American citizens, which surely egged him on.

Chicken, meet egg. The Bushists manufactured support for their stupid-ass wars (use the plural! there are two!) by repeatedly lying about WMDs and being greeted as liberators and claiming we'd be getting even with the mofos who carried out 9/11. Which, of course, they did use to claim a mandate. But is that the people's fault?

. The ensuing disaster is partly the fault of those Americans who told pollsters back in 2002 and 2003 that they supported Bush's war and then in 2004 voted to re-elect him, which he took, quite reasonably, as an endorsement of his policies.

Whoa, pony! "Re-elect"? Even a squishy pseudo-liberal like Kinsley oughta know Bush lost the 2000 election—shit, he lost Florida by thousands of votes! And, of course, the U.S. Supreme Court didn't have jurisdiction to rule in Bush v. Gore. (States run elections, so state courts—not federal ones—handle disputes over their outcomes.) If you think Bush won in 2004, he was at best elected, not re-elected. But there's plenty of doubt about the bullshit that went down in Ohio. And even if you allow that Ohio was legitimately a Republican state in 2004, Bush was running for "re-election" using a phony and illegitimate incumbency.

Millions of Americans now apparently regret those opinions. But unlike the politicians and the pundits, they do not face pressure to recant or apologize. American democracy might be stronger if they did.

How exactly, Mr. Kinsley, are "millions of Americans" supposed to "recant" or "apologize"? I share his annoyance at those morons who, had they only bothered to scratch the surface, should have known that Bush was a serial liar. But I don't expect them to apologize. An apology, after all, isn't going to bring back the million Iraqis and 3,000 soldiers and trillion dollars that have gone down the sinkhole. No, what I expect from the American people is to remember how all this went down the next time some two-bit huckster tries to sell them a line of shit, and to activate their skepticism chip.

Hopefully the professional opinion "manufacturers" will lead rather than blame the people.