The church of the savvy
Jay Rosen on “the church of the savvy” is great; thanks to Physicalist in comments for pointing him out.
Though they see themselves as the opposite of ideological, the people in the national press actually share an ideology: the religion of savviness. Since it differs from both liberal ideology and conservative ideology and from political thought itself, savviness often eludes description, or even recognition as a set of beliefs.
Oh is that what it’s called – the way they’re always talking about the process at the expense of the policy. “How will this affect the November elections?” is always the point, after a perfunctory and unenlightening glance at the substance. So that’s savviness.
The savvy do know how things work inside the game of politics, and it is this knowledge they try to wield in argument…. instead of argument. In this sense savviness as the church practices it is the exemption from the political that believers think will come to them because they are journalists striving only to report on politics or conduct analysis, not to “win” within the contest as it stands.
And that’s what makes them so boring and depressing – they report as if the process were an end in itself as opposed to…the process. They report as if winning were the only aim and as if all of us should be as enthralled by the contest as they are, when in fact most of us don’t give a flying fuck about the process, we want to know how they expect us to cough up thousands of dollars for health insurance every month.
Prohibited from joining in political struggles, dedicated to observing what is, regardless of whether it ought to be, the savvy believe that these disciplines afford them a special view of the arena, cured of excess sentiment, useless passon, ideological certitude and other defects of vision that players in the system routinely exhibit…[T]he savvy don’t say: I have a better argument than you… They say: I am closer to reality than you. And more mature.”
And that explains why they think they get to lecture people who are much older and wiser and cleverer than they are; it’s because they’re savvy. Yes that does explain a lot.
This phenomenon has grown way past crisis proportions – it’s so infected the journalistic establishment that it’s causing active harm to public policy. I first noticed it years ago, but now it’s everywhere. NPR is soaking in it. All Things Considered is two hours of “which experts say may undercut the President’s credibility with thus-and-such,” and “who is likely now to be seen as a strong advocate for. . . ” The reporters and commentators are completely unaware of – and unalarmed by – the fact that they’re discussing people who make decisions that affect people’s ability to eat, get medical care, or have a job as if the story were about politicians’ celebrity street cred. Not about people starving or dying for lack of a doctor’s care. It’s horrifying, and they don’t see it.
NPR’s Friday ass-kissing fest between EJ Dionne and David Brooks is the most egregious example. You won’t find five minutes anywhere more full of vacuous mutual flattery and sage pontificating on Politician X’s image. And yet NPR affects to believe these two actually represent the poles of the left/right spectrum.
Oh, so the media and/or intellectual community is treating the political process as a game played by the political echelon, leaving voters as occasional entrants into an image contest instead of acting as a meaningful polity?
*Chomsky pumps his fist, shouts `boo-yah!’*
That said, there are merits to assessing and making explicit the Machiavellian side of politics, as it elucidates many decisions. However, it comes in the form of cheering or booing decisions based on `good for her next election’ as opposed to `good for the public’.
This attitude goes under the ironic name of `realism’ and is praised in terms of `objectivity’. First, I hate the abuse of these terms, as they are being used in an ought sense; they are value judgments of positions. `Interest-seeking’ and `reality’ are here conflated. Further, the focus on tactics does not separate them from ideology. As the above conflation of ethics and reality allows for the sneaking-in of ideology, the contrary is more often true.
Ideally, strategic analysis would be treated as a side issue. A senator X casting vote Y should raise questions like `is senator X serving his constituency by voting Y?’, `is senator X representing his constituency by voting Y?’, `is Y better for the country as a whole?’, and etc. `Is senator X hurting his chances during the next election by voting Y?’ is a legitimate, albeit separate question. It is also one which should be discoverable by the voter, not requiring the media. By telling voters `ohhh senator X will really be in trouble next election over Y!’, the media influences the vote itself beyond its role as media.
This is part of why those within the media feel entitled to conclusions like `candidate A is unelectable.’ It’s a very undemocratic outlook.
lol at the Chomsky fist-pump. Although I have to say, the “savvy” criticism seems to me quite different in it’s diagnosis of the problem with the mass media from Chomsky’s propaganda model.
Also, <insert obligatory remark about Jon Stewart here>.
It’s not necessarily an offshoot of the propaganda model, but it is perfectly in line of his criticism of media treating political campaigns as infotainment, based on non-issues such as image which yields an `irrelevant observer’ role of the voter.
Then again, Manufacturing Consent offers an explanation of the way in which the word `objectivity’ is used in journalism which in turn props up this “savvy fanboyism” of the media. Specifically, media analysis which delves into the issues and how they impact the public in a serious way gain flak for being `unobjective’. It reminds me of an anecdote by John Pilger, who was told that his Year Zero could not be shown by some network because it was not `objective’ since it blamed the American bombing of Cambodia for the rise of the Khmer Rouge. In other words, this use of `objective’ can be always used as a weapon against criticism of the government or major corporations, therefore marginalizing dissent and manufacturing consent.
Reading this, and the comments, things have been a bit clearer in trying to understand what happened to Chris Mooney.
One only has too look at the CV of his co-blogger to get an idea as to what might have happened. Kirshenbaum is totally a political animal. She did a masters in marine policy, and had worked in the US congress for a politician. For her it seems the process is what is important.
Josh, quite. I can’t even listen to NPR news any more, for exactly the reasons you cite. A token ten words for the substance and then the rest of the slot is devoted to The Process. (That’s also why I’ve never liked The American Prospect – it’s all Process and Permanent Campaign and War Room and – ugh I feel sick.)
Matt Penfold,
It’s much worse than that. I wouldn’t mind Mooney and Kirshenbaum focusing on policy if they weren’t so dishonest about that, too. They don’t just frame the science/religion thing dishonestly, they frame the framing of science and religion dishonestly.
They’re worse than useless for any discussion of strategy, because they constantly stonewall about the most basic strategic issues, for years on end. They pretend that there are no substantive arguments against their preferred strategy, and frame people who disagree with them as just too dumb, mean, or irresponsible to do the obviously right thing.
For years now, Chris Mooney has completely stonewalled about the major strataegic arguments–he acts as though Overton Window arguments aren’t just wrong, but nonexistent, despite many people asking him to address Overton issues for several years.
Instead, he resorts to what amount to personal attacks on the New Atheists—they stupid, mean, and irresponsible.
That’s the biggest irony in M&K’s pontificating about civility. The last thing they want is an open, civil discussion of the real issues—not just about science and religion per se, but about the political strategies they’re supposed to be experts on.
Mooney and Kirshenbaum have no interest in actually teaching strategic reasoning. They want to be priests in the Church of Savvy, and preach about what to preach. (Lakoff does that too, to an annoying extent, but at least there’s some meat to what he says, and some substantive arguments beyond “you catch more flies with honey.”)
I have a very serious, longstanding interest in the strategic issues—I studied framing with Lakoff before Chris Mooney even heard of framing—and I find this simply disgusting on every level.
Aha, that’s interesting, Paul. I’m tempted to ask you to write an article for B&W on serious Lakoffian framing and how it differs from the Nisbet-Mooney variety. In fact…how about it?
Savvy shmavvy. Wake up and smell the coffee, Americans. Your country is a plutocracy. Campaigning is so expensive (because the important people have to run in huge eectoral districts — a state, the country) that presidents, senators, and governors have to live n the pockets of the super-rich. Reagan freed the media plutocrats to propagandize, and no one’s wanted to stop them since. You’re not listening to adherents of the church of the savvy, but to the higher-level serfs of the new feudalism.
*Another fist pump*
I’d like to see that article, Paul.
Ophelia,
How many words would you want?
Do realize I’m not actually an expert on framing, though I do think I actually understand it better than Mooney and Nisbet, or at least better than Mooney and Nisbet ever actually demonstrate.
I realize, but I know you’re a lucid thinker and explainer (and that your name is not Dave), and having studied with Lakoff is relevant expertise enough. Say…1700 to 3000 words?
But doesn’t that mean that Paul will be framing the framing of the framing of the framing? Perhaps Christopher Nolan could direct?
Ken:
Yeah. They say nobody’s ever managed three levels, singlehandedly, without suffering permanent brain damage. I may need to assemble a team.
Oh you can do it. We can handle five levels, isn’t that the number? I know that she thinks that he said that they hoped that she would go.
Well maybe not, that’s too much for me.
Ophelia:
I ‘m sure it’s possible for you to believe that I can entertain what you imagine to be quintuply-nested scenarios, but I doubt it’s possible for you to convince me that it’s really possible.
Oh wait.
All seriousness aside, we’re not just talking about nesting possible worlds (or mental spaces or whatever), but levels of full-blown framing discussion. That has much greater potential for neurological catastrophe.
I want to see it (potential catastrophe or no).