Isn't that called "projection"?
The New York Times is worried about the wrong echo chamber:
Scholars say Mr. Bush has been more strategic than most presidents in sprinkling loyalists throughout the administration. Paul C. Light, an expert in public service at New York University, says it has created an “echo chamber” in which the president gets advice he wants to hear.
posted by ColumbusGuy @ 4:16 AM
6 Comments:
At least the Times makes a token effort at diverse views. See Brooks, David and Safire, William.
"Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," by Doris Kearns Goodwin is a worthwhile read for understanding the dangers of the Bush (and yes, NYTimes) approach.
Ah yes, the token conservative. The New York Times has nothing but nutwing leftists who think Bush is the devil, except for this one spot where someone occasionally disagrees. (Compare this to the Washington Post, where they actually care about the kind of diversity liberals don't like, political diversity.)
Safire was the "conservative" for years. He was so conservative he voted for Clinton. Then, when he left, they had the space open, so picked Brooks, who's almost as likely to criticize Republicans as Democrats.
I'm not asking for fairness. The Times wouldn't recognize it so couldn't achieve it if it tried. All I'm asking for is a 3:1 ratio against conservatives instead of 9:1, and that 1 be a real conservative.
I liked the Goodwin book, though I don't see how it can tell us anything important about Bush.
You read the Goodwin book but don't see any instructive contrast between Lincoln's treatment of Seward and others and the Bush administration's approach of retaining only yes-persons and forcing out or firing anyone (see Gen. Shinseki, seven or so US atty's, etc.) who provides a contrary or even independent view? Wow. Just, wow.
Lincoln ultimately saw the big picture and was willing to fight for what he believed was right, even if it was unpopular, and got countless Americans killed, as well as overriding basic civil rights in the process. Bush has done what he believes is right, and not gotten too many Americans killed, nor changed our civil rights significantly (certainly not compared to Lincoln), so even if you believe the slanders against him, how instructive is this "difference" in how Lincoln and Bush ran things in different times during different crises?
And I'm not willing to grant the echo chamber thesis, el jefe.
The difference is, because Lincoln sought numerous contrary points of view before he decided what was "right," he was more likely to get it "right." Just doing what you think is right and getting lots of people killed, by themselves, is not enough.
Post a Comment
<< Home