Not a Branding Problem.  A Problem Problem.

Conor Friedersdorf, writing for the Atlantic, highlights perhaps the most important lesson from this election for all of us, republicans and democrats.  We cannot allow elites, on either side, to cynically and shamelessly distort our information system and expect democracy to remain both possible and desirable. Friedersdorf’s piece is short, but well worth considering carefully.

The information bubble, within which sound-bite sabotage is honored in place of thoughtful analysis of data, Friedersdorf describes is not a uniquely republican problem.  It is, however, accurate to observe that this problem is not evenly distributed today.  It is absolutely wrong to conclude ‘both sides do it,’ if by that you mean both do it equally today. 

With a longer historical perspective we can see that there are times when both sides have done it, though at any given time one is the vanguard and today the vanguard are “conservative information elites pander[ing] in the most cynical, self-defeating ways,” in part because it turns out to be “profitable” (if not a successful electoral strategy) to broadcast and publish “inane bullshit.”

Ta-Nehisi Coates, also in the Atlantic, made a similar observation in his blog.

Romneys 16 percent of the Latino vote does not merely approach the black vote in Ohio, it nearly mirrors Bush's 16 percent of the black vote from 2004. This should scare the hell out of any non-delusional GOP operative.

I am hearing a great deal of talk about "appealing to Hispanics" and "appealing to women." But I am not hearing much about endorsing actual policies. What happened last night is not a matter of cosmetics. This is not false consciousness. This a real response to real policies. Mitt Romney actually endorsed Arizona's immigration policies. You can't fix this by flashing more pictures of brown people.

This is not a "branding problem." This is a "problem problem." Latino voters didn't go crazy. Latino voters went voter.

Friedersdorf reminds us that for the months leading up to the election there was a controversy, only in the conservative media, over putatively skewed polls.  Nate Silver at the New York Times (whose projections turned out to be spot on accurate) was the primary target of conservative information elite wrath.  Of course, the Daily Show with Jon Stewart hits another home run on this one as well.

“Barack Obama just trounced a Republican opponent for the second time. But unlike four years ago, when most conservatives saw it coming, Tuesday's result was, for them, an unpleasant surprise. So many on the right had predicted a Mitt Romney victory, or even a blowout -- Dick Morris, George Will, and Michael Barone all predicted the GOP would break 300 electoral votes. Joe Scarborough scoffed at the notion that the election was anything other than a toss-up. Peggy Noonan insisted that those predicting an Obama victory were ignoring the world around them. Even Karl Rove, supposed political genius, missed the bulls-eye. These voices drove the coverage on Fox News, talk radio, the Drudge Report, and conservative blogs. 

Those audiences were misinformed.

Outside the conservative media, the narrative was completely different. Its driving force was Nate Silver, whose performance forecasting Election '08 gave him credibility as he daily explained why his model showed that President Obama enjoyed a very good chance of being reelected.” 

Friedersdorf is also correct to point out that this self-defeating information exile was not merely about misinforming voters about one election.  It is more systematic and that is what makes is an even more serious threat to democracy, a threat that should make democratic partisans pray for a return to health of their republican opponents, before this disease cripples our entire body politic…or, as then Senator Obama said,

“With the rest of the public, I had watched campaign culture metastasize throughout the body politic, as an entire industry of insult—both perpetual and somehow profitable—emerged to dominate cable television, talk radio, and the New York Times bestseller list.” 

Are we finally catching up with the president’s analysis here…and ready to recognized that he is a moderate on all issues save this one…making democracy work by battling the elite-driven information distortion he called ‘an entire industry of insult’ and Friedersdorf calls highly profitable for private sector information elites, but a cynical pandering that a self-defeating public-sector leadership strategy?

“Conservatives were at an information disadvantage because so many right-leaning outlets wasted time on stories the rest of America dismissed as nonsense. WorldNetDaily brought you birtherism.  Forbes brought you Kenyan anti-colonialism. National Review obsessed about an imaginary rejection of American exceptionalism, misrepresenting an Obama quote in the process, and Andy McCarthy was interviewed widely about his theory that Obama, aka the Drone Warrior in Chief, allied himself with our Islamist enemies in a "Grand Jihad" against America. Seriously?

Conservatives were at a disadvantage because their information elites pandered in the most cynical, self-defeating ways, treating would-be candidates like Sarah Palin and Herman Cain as if they were plausible presidents rather than national jokes who'd lose worse than George McGovern….

…A lot of cynical people have gotten rich broadcasting and publishing red meat for movement conservative consumption….

It ought to be an eye-opening moment. 

But I expect that it'll be quickly forgotten, that none of the conservatives who touted a polling conspiracy will be discredited, and that the right will continue to operate at an information disadvantage. After all, it's not like they'll trust the analysis of a non-conservative like me more than the numerous fellow conservatives who constantly tell them things that turn out not to be true.”