Discover more from Overcoming Bias
For the last few years the message we’d heard from our relatively liberal media is about how powerful is the U.S. president and how important are leader motives in determining policy outcomes. Specifically, we’ve heard that U.S. outcomes are bad because of Bush’s despicable motives [added: and incompetence] — Bush has personally destroyed Iraq, New Orleans, the global environment, the deficit, oil and food prices, drug prices, the housing market, the mortgage industry, civil rights, and so on.
Odds are we will soon have a president Obama, and with him the outcomes won’t be much different – U.S. presidents don’t control that much after all. So we will soon hear the media talking a lot more about how limited is presidential power and how important is other context in determining outcomes — Obama tried but was thwarted by congress, foreigners, interest groups, the weather, complexity, and so on. Just wait for it.
Added 5Jun: We expect media to prefer a Democrat over a Republican president if we think they are more Democratic than Republican, in current political terms. We need make not reference to US or world public opinion. In general an ambiguous supporting argument should be read as making the weakest claim necessary to give the desired support – no further disclaimers should be needed.
Wait For It
The Groseclose and Milyo paper you linked to is, in my judgment (and I've spoken to Groseclose and corresponded with Milyo), fundamentally flawed. This isn't the forum for going into it, but I felt the need to throw it out there.
Bush has destroyed Iraq for profit of friends and because his PNAC doesn't like non-Christians. Obama does not serve the PNAC.
Bush mildly delayed the NO rescue by not immediately firing incompetant officials (like the horse trainer who didn't set up a command centre). Do you really think Obama's mother would tell the American people: people living in the Superdome are doing good for themselves (I really hope Barb just meant to say: good, given the situation)?
GWB campaigned on a platform that no one would tempt the US thirst for oil. He actively has lobbied for big oil and supressed scientific discovery so badly, I'm almost willing to give the Chinese super-power model a try, for all its warts. Obama has a $150 billion ten-year enviro-trust in the planning. He has enough measured caution in his stated biofuel and nuclear platforms, that he might even avoid/divest these pyrhic "solutions".
The US deficit is primarily a Republican tax-cut and Iraq War creation. Bush's Iraq War added $5/barrel to oil prices and maybe he unleashed inflation or USD flight that added another $5. Not much. His corn biofuel subsidies doubled corn prices and increased most other crop prices....
I doubt B.Obama would utilize racial profiling of Arabs as much as Bush is. I say this because he has friends (such as the Reverand) who should keep him grounded from his upbringing. It would be neat to see Obama institute a law that all whites must spend a day a year in a federal prison, like "Waldon Two" or the Soviet gulag. I'd bet 1/2 (drug possession, THC distribution, consensual sex with a mid-teen, not rapes and murders) the black inmates get immediately released in the aftermath...on the downside, Hepatitas, MRSA and HIV rates among affluent free whites would rise.
I agree its more a systemic than a leadership issue. If he was so bad, he wouldn't have won in 2004. My own belief for the CNN flip-flop, is the network realized just in 2008 it was responsible for helping to dumb-down American 2000/2004 voters, and it didn't want to unleash a third harm on the US people. CNN is remorseful.