Close Presidential Race? Don't Blame the Media, Blame the Voters

In civil tort law, it's not enough for a defendant to have done something wrong. The wrongful act has to be the "proximate cause" of a plaintiff's injuries. So, for example, if you leave an open bear trap in front of your house (happens all the time, I know), you clearly have done something negligent. But that doesn't mean that someone who trips and falls across the street can sue you for negligence, since you were not the proximate cause of the person's injuries.

I flashed back to my first year of law school and the concept of proximate cause when I read Adam McKay's great Huffington Post article yesterday. In a nutshell, Adam makes the argument that in the same way that the casinos always win at blackjack because the odds are stacked in their favor at 51 percent to 49 percent, the Republicans win presidential elections because they, too, have a 51-49 advantage, thanks to the lack of meaningful mainstream media to vet the lies told by the GOP.

While I agree with virtually everything Adam wrote regarding the sorry state of the U.S. press, I disagree with his conclusion that it is the media that gives the Republicans an odds advantage. Put another way, I'd argue that the media is the homeowner with the bear trap, in that they are clearly not doing their jobs, but they are not the proximate cause of this particular injury (GOP presidential wins with seemingly less qualified candidates).

So if it's not the media that are to blame, who do I point the finger at as being the proximate cause? Easy. The voters themselves.

I agree with the premise that the media, which is controlled by a handful of major corporations, is far more interested in making money and consolidating power than fulfilling its responsibility to inform the electorate. Where I break from the liberal orthodoxy on this issue is on the effect of the media's failings. The argument often goes that, "If only the people had the information to make an informed choice, they would choose the Democrat, but because those bastards in the mainstream media won't do their jobs, the voters don't have the tools to make the correct choice, and thus vote differently than they would if they had the benefit of a functioning media to vet the GOP lies."

You could make a strong argument that this was true in 1988 (the shameful Willie Horton ad and Michael Dukakis's ill-fated ride in a tank), and maybe -- maybe -- you can make that argument for 2000 and 2004. But in 2008? I think the argument no longer holds water. Voters have (or could have) all the information they need to make a choice this year. They're just making a choice that we on the left would consider a bad one.

Let me take a step back. Republicans have won the presidency since 2000 by combining three constituencies:

- Economic conservatives,
- Religious conservatives, and
- Voters who describe themselves as "moderate," "independent" and/or "undecided."

Even with a perfect media system in place with every piece of information available, you have to believe that the first two categories of voters are going to vote overwhelmingly Republican anyway. Those who narrow-mindedly vote based solely on macroeconomics under the belief that the free market will cure all lean naturally to the GOP (no matter how many studies show that Barack Obama's economic plan means less taxes for most Americans than John McCain's proposal). And religious wackadoodles have been trained to believe that the Republicans are the party of the Lord (even though there are numerous references in the bible to poverty but only one to homosexuality, but that's a completely different article topic for a different day). So Democrats will always have trouble with the religious right.

Really, when we talk about the importance of the media, we're talking about the ability to reach the third category of moderates, independents and undecided voters. Those are the citizens, the argument goes, who would vote for Obama (or would have voted for John Kerry or Al Gore) if they knew all the facts.

Specifically, in 2008, the argument goes: If the media would point out McCain's strictly GOP voting record of the last eight years in the Senate, and how he voted with Bush 90 percent of the time, plus how McCain has claimed not to no much about economics and how his economic policy was crafted by the former senator behind both the subprime mortgage crash and the increase in gas prices, and how he favors the same tax cuts for the rich instituted by Bush; and how he was an early advocate of the war in Iraq and was disastrously wrong about all of his predictions, and how the surge has failed when measured against President Bush's January 10, 2007 address to the American people announcing the reason for the plan (since the Iraqi government has not taken the painful but necessary steps toward self-governance), then these undecided voters would flock to Obama.

The argument follows that if only the media would report that Sarah Palin and other GOP convention speakers lied over and over again, that Palin lobbied hard for the so-called "bridge to nowhere," that she wanted to fire the librarian of Wasilla for not banning a huge list of classic literature from the shelves, that she is in favor of teaching creationism in schools, that she is against abortion even in the case of rape, that she has had no foreign policy experience as the titular head of the Alaska National Guard, that she had connections to Ted Stevens and his activities that led to his indictment, that her husband belongs to a party that advocates for secession and whose leader professed hatred of the U.S. government, and that she is patently unqualified to be president by any objective standard and represents a cynical grab for votes by McCain, then independent and moderate voters would wake up and vote for Obama.

I don't buy it.

The U.S. electorate has already demonstrated that it does understand that there are problems, and it is ready to take action. Even as measured by the right-wing Fox News, Bush currently enjoys an approval rating of only 28 percent. An August 3 CBS News/New York Times poll revealed that 81 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, and only 14 percent believe we are headed in the right direction. And in November 2006, Americans were angry enough about the war in Iraq to boot the Republicans out of control of both houses of Congress, and that anger continued into 2007 and 2008 as they replaced Republicans with Democrats in three special House elections in traditionally GOP districts in Louisiana, Mississippi and Illinois. And according to RealClearPolitics, a generic Democrat still enjoys a lead over a generic Republican in Congressional elections.

In other words, Americans know they are pissed off, and they have demonstrated the ability to effectuate "change" with their voting power. So if they wanted to do it for the presidency, they could.

With all the media coverage of this campaign (even if it's been lousy), and all of the information available for people on the Internet, there not only is no excuse for not knowing the facts the mainstream media isn't reporting about McCain, Palin and the Republicans, I would argue that most voters do, in fact, get the gist of what's going on. In an August 29 USA Today/Gallup poll, only 39 percent of respondents thought Palin was qualified to be president. Most independent voters know that she was involved in some less-than-nice stuff in Alaska and holds extreme right-wing positions. I even think the electorate has a strong sense that McCain has sided with Bush most of the time and would operate as president much like the current administration does. A USA Today/Gallup poll released yesterday showed that while McCain got a bounce from the GOP convention, 63 percent of respondents were concerned that he would continue Bush's policies if elected (virtually unchanged from 64 percent and 66 percent in earlier polls).

What I'm getting is, voters essentially know what's going on. They just don't care. I believe that "undecided" voters that go to McCain aren't doing so because of any lack of information, they are doing it despite that information. I think there are two explanations for this phenomenon.

The first one is easier and more obvious: race. I do believe that there are people in this country who, for whatever reason, can't bring themselves to pull the lever for an African-American presidential contender. I often go back to Steve Kroft's 60 Minutes interview before the Ohio primary with an undecided voter who was leaning towards Obama, but had concerns because he "heard" Obama was a Muslim who wouldn't salute the flag during the pledge of allegiance. Some voters are open about it, a lot more aren't (maybe even trying to convince themselves that it's not about race). These folks are just looking for an excuse not to vote for Obama, something to justify their "discomfort," claiming it has nothing to do with race.

Nothing the media could do would make Obama a more palatable option for the group of ignorant Americans who won't vote for a black presidential candidate.

The second reason some voters seem not to care about the facts in selecting a candidate is more subtle, but may be more powerful: They don't want to be asked to sacrifice. As a nation, we have become a what's-in-it-for-me, sacrifice-free culture. During World War II, Americans were asked to make all kinds of sacrifices, including rationing, and they did so to support the war effort. Sixty years later, it would be hard to imagine any leader having the guts to make the same requests of the American people, since they would correctly fear being turned out of office in the next election. Any politician who advocated raising taxes, instituting the draft or rationing the use of oil to support the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan would be roundly smacked down by the voters. The culture has changed.

So it's not surprising that Obama's message is not resonating as well as McCain's with a certain group of undecided voters. Obama is telling Americans, in essence, "Things are bad. We're in a bad war. We're in a bad economy. And our energy policy is killing us. We can fix it, but you will have to make some changes. You have to accept that there may not be a traditional victory in Iraq. And you have to change the way you use energy, or else the country and the planet will be in bad shape." That puts a lot of pressure on Americans to actually have to take responsibility for their actions and their country, something they are no longer ever asked to do. Obama is saying Americans have to sacrifice. That's brave. And it's the right course of action. But it's dangerous when you're looking for votes.

Meanwhile, what is McCain saying? His message is: "We're going to win in Iraq. The economy is basically fine. And if we drill offshore, we can produce our own oil, and you can keep using as much energy as you want ... and it will be cheaper. You don't have to change a thing." Clearly, if you stick to the facts, McCain is lying to Americans. We can't drill ourselves out of our much larger energy crisis, and the offshore drilling won't produce any oil for ten years and will have virtually no effect on gas prices, even in the estimation of Bush's own Energy Information Administration. McCain knows that under Bush's economic policies, the gap between rich and poor has widened to a historically high level, that Americans are in debt like never before, and that the subprime mortgage crisis has weakened the economy. And McCain has been front and center as a supporter of the war in Iraq, one of the costliest and most ill-conceived foreign policy blunders in modern U.S. history.

But it doesn't matter. When faced with a choice between the guy that's telling them that nothing has to change and everything is okay, and the guy who is telling them that everything has to change and nothing is all right, many self-interested voters are opting for the guy telling them that they can keep living their lives as they have been. No facts are going to disrupt this line of thinking. Fixing the incompetence and abdication of the mainstream media would have no effect on these people.

It's important to remember that democracy works, but not always the way you might think. The government reflects the will of the people. If the electorate wants to check out and vote for a fantasy rather than addressing the real problems facing the country, then that country's citizens will get exactly what they deserve. If they know that the last eight years have not gone well, and then they return to office the people who got us into this mess in the first place, they deserve to live in four more years of the same mess. If Americans want to delude themselves to believe the lies and distortions pumped out by the GOP attack machine, then they deserve to be governed by the Republicans. It's really that simple.

The media might be derelict in their duties, but they are not the cause of the current tight race for the presidency. And for once, we can't blame the candidate, since Obama has done an immeasurably better job so far than Kerry did in 2004 or Gore did in 2000. No, this time, the blame has to go to the voters themselves. One consolation: No matter who wins in November, Americans will get exactly what we deserve.

Comments

[Wilsonv]

Mitchell, although I agree with you 99.99%, I still think a huge number of voters are not informed and don't receive the truth.

Alot of people still don't have internet connections or ways of getting accurate information. Espically in the midwest and south.

They have TV and Radio, and Radio in the south is pretty much religous or right wing. People will also go with the crowd and try to fit in so if we can tip that balance it could be a new day in America.

[placeyourvote]

I don't think it will be close, are they polling blacks, hispanics, other ethic groups, are just poor uneducated whites, plus white women

[iloveiowa]

this is a poor argument, and lots of evidence proves this author wrong. whenever favorable media coverage is matched with that candidate's poll numbers, the numbers go up, and the same is true of unfavorable media coverage. i don't think this author really understands how profound of an impact what and how something is reported can be. "sacrifice?" really? because most reports are in fact that obama's tax plan (and taxes are always a huge issue, perhaps more so this year) will require people to "sacrifice" LESS than mccain. i don't know what law school the author attended, but i have to question his critical thinking skills. it's just a bad argument, and in that sense, it sounds very, very republican.

[iluvsam]

Americans are gluttons for punishement.

[Patrick McCabe]

"Don't Blame the Media, Blame the Voters"

What is censorship to voters? If the media edits (omits) the whole news story it is for their agenda not the publics.

"Bare lies" in civil torts influences the verdict if the evidence to counter a relevant charge in the trial is omitted. Deliberately hiding evidence that was found in discovery to counter an argument is unlawful. It is done all the time. Discovery in the judicial system depends on both parties abiding by the ethics of the court. If the system is not being followed the judge will intervene. Cases can be lost by the judges decision on such a matter.

In this article, misinformation, calculated and repeated lies, arrogance of repeatedly lying are not the presses fault to repudiate: its yours to figure out -- the voter. That is completely a non sequitur argument. "What we have here is a failure to communicate" to the voter by the press,

The press has facts that they do not allow because it would change the argument EITHER WAY. Suppose the judge used the same BIAS. Would anyone trust the court system to decide their fate? The MSM drives the voters, albeit the prejudices cannot be overcome, suborning the truth to voters to control an outcome is a crime.

[easterman]

What a terrific analogy of a growing problem. I pray that journalism's honor is restored by some news media that seeks the truth the Ameican Way like Superman. Way to go McCabe super insight on the fourth estate. We need it to be unfiltered.

[Patrick McCabe]

A "bear trap" is not relevant in your analogy of making a case on negligence. Yet "bare lies" in civil tort makes a huge difference influencing the verdict if the evidence to counter a relevant charge in the trial is omitted. Deliberately hiding evidence that was found in discovery to counter an argument is unlawful. It is done all the time. Discovery in the judicial system depends on both parties abiding by the ethics of the court. If the system is not being followed the judge will intervene. Cases can be lost by the judges decision on such a matter.

In this article, misinformation, calculated and repeated lies, arrogance of repeatedly lying are not the presses fault to repudiate: its yours to figure out -- the voter. That is completely a false argument. "What we have here is a failure to communicate" to the voter by the press,

The press has facts that they do not allow because it would change the argument EITHER WAY. Suppose the judge used the same BIAS. Would anyone trust the court system to decide their fate? The MSM drives the voters, albeit the prejudices cannot be overcome, suborning the truth to voters to control an outcome is a crime.

[AgingObserver]

Excellent points, Mr. Bard. I think your key premise is a bit unfair, however. Those who vote for the winning candidates, whether dyed-in-the-wool supporters or the elusive "swing voter," definitely deserve the persons elected. But not those who vote for the opposition, and lose.

[BBGCali]

Mithchell, this is an excellent article--one of the best I have read. I feel as you do, if people place McCain in office, then they get what they deserve. I am sending this article to all my friends and family. Thanks for a great article!!!

[demfriend]

As one little citizen voter I would like to say I rely on MSM to give me the truth, the facts and no distortions but I cannot. It has become too easy to watch a news show on regular and cable tv and to know which way they lean. In print it is also becoming easier as the knowledge of who owns hat medium and which shows brings to little doubt the influence that owner has as it shows too. The previous elections didn't bring about much because the internet was too new and there wasn't the blogs which you could access which would inform you as well as give you searchable things to chase down. I find it offensive that MSM doesn't care about who might be put in a osition of power and who might destroy the country because they would much rather whip up lies and make up stories to get more readers/watching. How are the average people supposed to learn the real stories and the truth when the candidate lies whe hey are not like me and do rely on MSM for the truth? They find it in the liar ads and the liar stories madeup without anything back from the media to say "LIAR".

[AshevilleVoice]

If controlling the media weren't absolutely critical for a right wing success strategy, then the billions spent by right wing think tanks over the last 20 years to buy controlling shares in radio, print and tv stations have just serendipitously led up to a sharp move to the right in voting trends.

Many people do not have the time, the inclination, or the politically savvy education necessary to question mainstream news. It's hard to say that you don't believe something that is on every single news channel with homogeneous agreement. No one wants to cross over into paranoid conspiracy theoryland.

Here in Appalachia, with both parents working, inferior schools that require parents to find or become tutors, and economic stresses that sometimes prohibit purchasing high speed internet or a full cable package, people can't be expected to research news for themselves. That is unrealistic.

[cn2004]

The problem with your analysis is that it comes from a communist way of thinking. Let me explain. In theory communism is wonderful. Everyone is equal, no one is rich or poor, every one works collectively for the good of the whole. But in practice, it doesn't work. Why? Because not everyone is the same. People have different motivations, different skill levels different attitudes. That is the mistake you make. You assume everyone thinks alike and fail to realize that people are inherently different. Just because polls say that George Bush has an 80% disapproval rating doesn't mean 80% think that the solution is Barack Obama or the democratic party. Guess what, not everyone is pro-choice. Or wants universal health care. Or believes we have less freedom than before. You are saying that people are stupid, don't have the capability of understanding the issues. People aren't stupid. They may not know every detail of every position a candidate takes, but they know the reality. We aren't electing a dictator. We are electing a president. A candidate can make a hundred promises and we know very few will come to fruition. Bottom line, this country runs itself. People know that most change will come from their own acts, not the acts of government. So people won't vote on issues because they know for the most part the issues are meaningless. They will vote for who the like, who they connect with. Not who they think is better on the issues.

[Mitchell Bard - Huffpost Blogger]

cn2004, I never said people are stupid. I said they are self-interested, unwilling to sacrifice, and, in some cases, racist.

If a voter thinks that John McCain's policies are the way to go, he/she should vote for John McCain.

But if someone votes for McCain on the theory that he will be different than Bush, that is not supported by the facts.

Of course people are different. And of course not everyone will support the same policies. And I certainly don't think every person will want to vote for Barack Obama. I never made any of those claims. But more people are pro-choice than anti-choice. More people think there has to be a change to the healthcare system than think that it should stay the same. (To use your two examples.)

And I'm sorry, it's not up for debate if we haev less freedom. There are a littany of concrete facts as to how we, as a country, are far less free than we were eight years ago.

[Patrick McCabe]

Habeas Corpus

[Sindel1967]

Here cn2004, let's help you out with the ACTUAL definition of communism:

1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

Nowhere in this definition does it say that everyone thinks or acts alike.

What really scares your corporatists is the idea of REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, not all the other bunk you are writing.

[lmt27]

what Obama is doing is telling the American people the truth. Unfortunetly, most Americans can't handle the truth; you see, they know the shape the country is in and they want something different but they can't accept the fact that the needed change would be coming in the form of a man with skin darker than theirs. That is why Mccain has now stolen Obama's message of change because he knows that people were listening so now, he is saying 'you can have change but you don't have to vote for the black guy.' And all the 'undecided' voters can now vote for Mccain, because lets face it if we are this close to election and there is someone out there who is claiming to be 'undecided', they were just looking for a reason not to vote for Obama anyway. So, along comes John and Sarah who look just like you and now guess what; we are offering the same thing he is offering and boy don't you have more in common with us then you have with him? John Mccain should be ashamed of himself for the way he has ran his campaign the past two weeks. He has sunk to the lowest of the low. If Mccain does win in November it will be without honor.

[chrisbee13]

I'm so disappointed with the media, but I totally agree with your analysis, Mitchell. As a former journalist who quit before I even got started (got my degree and was already disallusioned), I feel particular pain seeing the profession I love go down the drain.

The problem between the media and the public and the information being published/aired is cyclical. The media airs what people want to see (celebrity gossip and sensationalized news), rather than what they should see (the truth, hardhitting, watchdog journalism). I have friends still in the industry that pitch real stories only to have them shot down for the fluff.

Media ownership is a major problem because when ratings and ad money dominate the culture, the bosses become less willing to take a chance on a controversial story.

I just wish more people were like me and take in as much information as I can on a daily basis. To me, this election should be obvious, and it's not. And it's not the media. People don't want to hear the truth because, like you said, it's not happy-go-lucky, keep doing what you're doing. Even if the media were to tell them the truth, people would just change the channel.

2004 I was disappointed, if McCain wins, I think I will have lost all faith :(

[Mitchell Bard - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for your insight, chrisbee13.

[KillTheMessenger]

Dead on. Thank you! We need more analysis like this with the courage to say it as it is.

[arnray]

I've been reading the HuffPost semi-regularly for about a year now and this is the first in deph analysis that I can wholeheartedly agree with every single sentence. Thank you for so effectively communicating what my brain has been telling myself. One institution I would bestow some cupibility on, however, is Education. Not near enough emphasis is being placed on developing an ability to use reason and logic. We are ill served by an electorate that just doesn't have a capacity to be skeptical of messages that resonate with their gut instinct - what some refer to as the "lizard brain". Could it be that our educational system is more geared towards producing consumers than citizens?

[Mitchell Bard - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks, arnray. Interesting point about education. I don't know enough about the current education system to have an opinion, but what you say certainly does make great food for thought.