There was a minor furor yesterday over an article on Huffingtonpost with an incendiary headline about Obama softening his tone on the big bankers. The headline was indeed misleading and editorialized what the President said. That's actually the least interesting part of this story.
This incident is a snapshot of what is wrong with the media and politics. NOBODY comes out clean in this one - even Paul Krugman and Simon Johnson, two commentators I respect.
The Media
Its not difficult to figure out the genesis of all this. Its right here:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
On February 7 the New York Times printed a typical mainstream media anonymously sourced article saying basically that Wall Street, having invested so much in the President, is now angry with him. If you want to see a genuine abuse of anonymous sourcing its articles like these, newspapers giving powerful people cover to rant.
Now what this article does is start the reverse engineering cycle. For those who don't know what reverse engineering is, its when journalists create a story through the questions they ask, as opposed to asking questions relating to a story. How did it work in this instance? Simple. If Wall Street is angry with Obama, how does Obama feel about Wall Street? There are only two ways he can respond, as outraged as he did before or less outraged. Either one is a great big gift to the news cycle. If he maintains the hard tone "War: Wall St vs Obama". If he softens "Obama Boils Down".
Now its a fine line. A journalist asking the President about his commitment to the Public Option after noticing it had disappeared from the discourse is showing a good instinct for news. And the response will show exactly where the policy is going to go.But Obama's statement here will have absolutely no policy consequences.
This is the world public figures have to live in, where every word is parsed for a news nugget. Thats the reason for politics speak.
Krugman, Johnson et all.
I am in the disaffected camp. I believe Obama is a Centrist in the DLC mold and is heavily beholden to entrenched corporate interests. I am also a major fan of the work of Krugman and Simon Johnson. I think what Arianna Huffington is doing at present is much more worthwhile than much of the administration boosting that goes on here. But the response to this article has been so Pavlovian it is amazing. Most likely Obama's goal was to say as little as possible to avoid just what has happened. If the angry response to this article is strategy designed to warn Obama about the dangers of coddling Wall Street, fine. But if not then we are far too easily manipulated.
President Obama
Bipartisanship, traingulation, finding a middle ground - whatever you want to call it, its time is past. If there is one constant in Obama's strategy its to find a middle position. Many times that is a reasonable, nuanced position. But sometimes its playing politics, its playing it safe. Sometimes you have to take a stand. Sometimes you have to fight for something. The President called people "savvy businessmen" who the public doesn't just think of as "stupid businessmen". They think of them as criminals. What does Obama believe?