Interesting take on the modern legacy media from the WSJ’s Daniel Henninger (subscription only, so I’ll quote at length):
Witnessing the political reaction this week to the administration’s Dubai ports-management decision, the phrase that insistently called out from memory was the title of a famous essay by the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “Defining Deviancy Down.” One would not have thought it possible, but Washington’s political class is defining our politics down.
After nearly seven days of elevating the Cheney bird-hunting accident to the level of a national crisis, now comes this week’s flap over managing the ports. To be sure, the matter of secure U.S. ports trumps the hunting of quail as an affaire d’état. But it was the strikingly low quality of the politicians’ commentary and behavior that attracted notice.
Within hours, if not minutes, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Rep. Robert Menendez announced “emergency” legislation to “ban foreign governments from controlling operations at our ports.” No matter that most of the current operators of our ports are from Denmark, Britain and, uh-oh, China. Chuck Schumer: “It’s hard to believe that this administration would be so out of touch with the American people’s national security concerns.” Yes, that is hard to believe.
Once the match was put to the ports decision in Washington, the bonfire spread quickly to the governors’ mansions. New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, until recently a U.S. senator, told Ron Insana he was filing a federal lawsuit to thwart the move because the roads near the Port of Newark are “the two most dangerous miles in America.” They are? Maybe he should put warning signs on the Jersey Turnpike.
What we have here is the dawn of the new Yosemite Sam school of national politics. Put any news event in front of our politicians now—Hurricane Katrina, Terri Schiavo, Dick Cheney’s quail or this week the ports—and like Bugs Bunny’s hair-triggered nemesis they’ll start spraying the landscape with wild remarks and opinions decoupled from what is knowable about these events. Wait to learn the facts—as almost alone, Sen. John McCain, suggested? Why bother?
Yes, there are matters of substance in the ports decision about which serious people could disagree, but there’s not much chance of that now, not after the politicos have poisoned the well. On Sunday Rep. Peter King of Long Island, chairman of the homeland security committee, was virtually the first pol to light up the ports issue: “How are they going to guard against things like infiltration by al Qaeda or someone else?” Three days later Mr. King announced: “Lawmakers are responding to incredible local pressure.” But it was the remarks of Mr. King and his colleagues that drove the torrent of calls to the talk shows. Hold hearings to learn more? Sure, why not. But what chance is there that the Dubai Ports World hearings, like those just held on the NSA antiterror wiretap program, would result in other than more hyperbolic grandstanding?
[My emphases]
Much like spammed online polls that are then cited as proof of the assertion being willed into statistical “truthfulness” by poll riggers, the national media, along with grandstanding lawmakers who now have access to 24 hour news cycles, both, as Henninger notes here, sensationalize the news of the day in hopes of getting the sound bite / headline of the night.
The result? Lots of hearings—based on an abundance of ginned up national angst—where additional grandstanding takes place (which hearins are then dutifully covered by the press as proof that the original assertions of ineptitude and wrongdoing were both pointed and crucial to our national understanding of the problem of the day, and not simply hyperbolic, opportunistic overreactions meant to score political points).
Personally? I would have loved to see the White House Report on the government’s reaction to Katrina contain a single page, with a single line: “Tell Shep Smith and his Emmy-hungry pals in the alarmist press that he’s not helping anyone by hyperventilating on national TV—and that if he feels the need to point fingers, he might actually try to learn something about how the planning for such emergencies is designed to work before opening his accusatory yap (and proceed in his critique from there), so that we don’t end up apologizing ourselves into a position where we further centralize government on the federal level, which will only add new layers of potential screwups.”
At any rate, Henninger is welcome to guest blog hear anytime he wishes.
****
(h/t Terry Hastings)
This guy is obviously a right-wing propagandist.
Next he’ll say that hurricanes wiping out coastal communities trumps a selfless patriot camping out on the side of the road near Crawford, TX.
The parrallel between the ports sale and the Katrina tragedy are eerie. Look at the kneejerk reaction by Malkin and the Corner to the both of them. Declaring how horrible they both are, prior to having any facts and then as reasonable people shoot down their premature denunciations, they pull isolated, seemingly meaningless, items as an example of their “truth”.
Clinton and Schumer positing bills that will deny foreign operation of ports is hilarious. Who is going to operate the ports that are now managed by the British, Danes and Chinese if they are successful? Political posturing is all that this is.
This whole identity politics thing would blow over if we mended a few fences. Perhaps the next time that the House and Senate are out of session, they could play some softball over at the White House lawn. Bush could fire up the grill and burn some weiners and brauts. A sack race could be fun. Buck could whip up some green bean casserole. I’ll bring the potato salad.
Every time I think I cannot become more disillusioned with Congress, they prove me wrong.
Thanks, all you “Honorable Members”.
Turn this thing around. These same “Honorable Members” would be hammering a foreign government for standing in the way of an Americn company engaged in the same sort of arrangement.
And, for those of us who have, in fact, BEEN to Dubai–it’s a pretty good example of the kind of free-wheeling capitalism that would be good for everyone, everywhere.
Note to hyperventilators: Last I checked, the Customs Service is still in business.
ANTI-YOSEMITE!!!
I continue to have great forebodings about this deal, have heard proponents argue for it, but find I can’t argue against the deal without being called a racist or islamophobe. I think another good parallel to explore would be the Harriet Myers nomination, where conservatives against her nomination were labeled as sexists by her supporters. That’d be par for the course if it were liberals doing that, but it’s disappointing to have other conservatives doing it.
Good post. The 24 hr news cycle and politicians pandering to it drive us in weird directions.
Can a country be governed by hyperventilation?
My foreboding is reserved for the ability of anyone to ever do anything big without becoming a press punching bag.
Doesn’t matter if you’re right or wrong, what matters is can you sell advertising and subscriptions?
Cyncical, self-serving, ignorant, careless press.
Dawn? This is the Blowback of the BS. Its dawn for those that are hung over from the last war party, and rolled out of bed in time for an early february sunset.
Cautiously Pessimistic —
I don’t believe opponents are necessarily xenophobic or anti-Arab. Just over-cautious and sadly misinformed.
From my perspective, when I finally decided where to come down on this controversy, it seemed to me the best course of action was to trust allies who have apparently been extraordinarily helpful to the CIA since 911 so as to avoid falling into the trap of being accused of the kind of xenophobia or identity politics that will almost certainly be used against us as a wedge by our enemies.
From my understanding, port security is in no way tied to the management of the ports by a company that was sold by British interests to UAE.
If we wish to pass legislation making it illegal for foreign interests to have anything at all to do with our ports, cool, let’s have the debate—though I think that kind of move away from free market globalism is a step backward toward creating a freer world; but at the very least, it would highlight the difference between port management and port security.
A compromise—and perhaps smart Dems are already aiming for this—is to agree to support the deal in exchange for greater money being allocated by DHS for port security.
At any rate, here’s my thinking in a nutshell: as with the cartoon kerfuffle, we should be pushing our interests and extolling their virtues (in these cases, free speech and genuine religious tolerance, and a refusal to revert to a kind of nativist isolationism out of what are largely sensationalized fears that can be separately addressed).
But we seem to be going at this exactly backward (not the President, mind you—but, for instance, the Clintons, one of whom, Hillary, is calling UAE allied management of the ports a security disaster; while here hubby mouths off about imprisoning the editors of the Danish papers who allowed those cartoons to be printed).
I know where classical liberalism comes down on all this. And there I am, smiling and waving my Reagan “Trust, but verify” commemorative t-shirt.
– The Liberal press, like the Left controlled Democrats, are all about changing the subject these days, the louder and more distracting the better. Their very real version of “Methods of mass distraction”. Is this an election year or something?
– The Reps sucked into this wind bag draft of self-serving alarmism, are just confused and concerned like all politico’s facing re-election. Move along folks. Nothing too see here….
Cautiously Pessimistic:
Let me chime in with Jeff by stating that you can offer arguments opposing this deal that aren’t rejected pro forma as xenophobic et. al. But then make that argument.
I happen to favor the deal because, well, what’s to oppose? First off, DP World is NOT “running” or “operating” the port, and security for the port is NOT being outsourced. DP World is aquiring a stevedoring, or freight handling business. Unionized American longshoremen do the work. Coast Guard and Customs do the security. Nothing changes except for who reaps the revenues and pays the bills. What’s the issue?
The “security” issue is where the ships are loaded–just as airplane/airport security clearances take place when loading the plane, not after it has arrived at its destination.
For example, in a foreign port, DP World is already loading freighters bound for New York, or Baltimore, or etc., where the Customs and security clearances necessary are already occurring. When the ship arrives at its US destination, Customs and the Coast Guard will make their own confidential determinations as to what additional clearances are required. DP World will come to be aware of certain procedures in those particular harbors and ports as necessary to their operation. But such information is already widely known to existing foreign-owned port operators, as well as numerous foreign and state owned shipping companies. This information is fungible. One must assume terroists, if so inclined, already know about these details.
Are we to shut off port entry to any foreign company over the pretense that they may learn how some aspects of our security procedures work? Preposterous. Or do we just shut entry off to those we don’t like, however defined?
Airport security is very visable, and it makes people comfortable, if not feeling a little harassed. Since most of us never enter the docks and board a freighter, we’re ignorant of the specific threats and risks, the security measures in place, and their purposes.
The DP World deal is a faux issue. As wishbone mentions above, if it were an American company being prevented from acquiring foreign business operations, the same politicians would be raising havoc.
This is about politicians polishing their homeland security bona fides. Many of us recognize this ranting for the bullshit it is. And as long as the false meme of “turning our ports over to foreigners” and “outsourcing our security” is continued to play out, then most people will believe the politicians are “looking out” for you and me. Bogus.
Cheers.
As I understand it, P&O (a British company) has been doing this for years. Now P&O has been sold to the Dubai Government-owned company. That’s it. No other changes, but a change in ownership.
I’m sure somebody will correct me if I’m wrong.
Anyway – where’s the problem? The same company is going to do the same thing, but with a different company name on the paychecks.
Unless you think they’re going to fire the entire staff and hire swarthy, suspicious-looking replacements?
who, from what i’ve heard, would all require background checks.
Its only these days that its all about short attention span theater?
President Bush takes alot of abuse from everyone for not defending and/or explaining his policys enough, but IMO, I beleive the very Grandstanding, hyperventalating mentioned here is the reason why he is more reticent than some would like. This port deal is a good example of the damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t that the MSM constantly puts him in. I’m sure if he had not approved this action, W would have been accused of being a islophobic, clueless, racist, damaging our national reputation and endangering Americans lives by insulting the gentle and trustworthy arabs.
As a side note, a couple of days ago, I posted a defense of Shawn Hannity in response to Charlie Colorado calling him a moron. Well, I listened to him today discussing the port deal, and I wish to apoligise to Charlie, and take back all the nice things I said about Hannity. My God! What a MORON! Sorry Charlie, I was wrong.
I can understand that a case can be made for this deal. I also understand that our enemy has no specific country of origin, specializes in bad faith and surprise attacks, and has in the past engaged in plans involving long term infiltration of our country.
I think it is unwise to pretend there are no security risks with this deal (which many people try to minimize by saying our security is lousy anyway, so one more drop in the bucket won’t matter). If I had the impression that serious men in dark suits had studied the arrangement and were making plans to deal with the new risks involved, that would be one thing. The sense I get, though, is that this was a deal in the pipe for quite a while under everyone’s radar apart from the deal’s advocates, and everyone is assuming it’s going to be business as usual.
I don’t like this deal. I get a bad vibe off of it. It feels like we’re going back to sleep, and I very much want us to stay awake. This feels like a point where we can either rub sleep from our eyes, or hit the snooze button. Give the UAE a deal that’s further removed from national security concerns. If they act like they can’t understand why we’re leary of them being in such a position, it just reinforces my desire not to have them in that position.
You really cannot comment intelligently on this whole kerfuffle unless you watch the Senate hearing (available at C-SPAN in streaming video) grandstanding by Levin and Hillary notwithstanding.
The power of memes is once again demonstrated by our host’s (that means you Jeff) continued use of the phrase “port management”. This is where the press screwed the pooch in the first place.
Dubai Ports World will be assuming the management of 24 leased port terminals out of 829 within the confines of six ports. They will not be managing any “ports”. The management of ports and port security will remain in government hands.
As the hearing makes clear the real practical issue is determining what is being loaded in cargo containers ELSEWHERE not who is unloading them from ships in our ports. Through their involvement in the container security initiative, Dubai Ports World already knows a great deal about what we want from shippers re documentation of what is in the containers. What they are not privy to is our intelligence data nor the algorithm employed for determining which containers we will elect to search when containers are unloaded.
I strongly suggest that you watch the hearing. To me it was reassuring…the guys appear to be on top of it.
The hyperventilating at the hearing was over the meaning of “could”. If you watch the hearing you will know what I mean…and you will never understand what the fuck they are talking about unless you do.
Is America’s political culture on speed?!!
Henninger’s excellent piece could describe the fractious, demented, hyper-active behaviors of a speed-freak after a three-night binge.
(Ever watch the movie “Spun?”)
WTF! Excedrin PM anyone?
-Steve