| Number 112 | March 30, 2001 |
|
This Week:
|
|
Greetings, Based on the number of readers who tell me that enjoy my comments on the media even though they can't bring themselves to read the daily papers (or sometimes because they can't do it), I thought of a new motto that I could recite at random times at my whim: "Nygaard Notes – Reading A Lot of Newspapers So You Don't Have To." Not too catchy, is it? Oh, well... Who knew, before last month's release of a report from the Justice Policy Institute, that more Americans were thrown into federal prisons under Clinton than under Bush and Reagan COMBINED? Uncovering important facts like these is what gets a group's website elevated to the lofty status of Nygaard Notes Website of the Week. Thank you to the Justice Policy Institute for adding up these (and other) important numbers. Welcome to all the new readers this week! And thank you to all of you old readers who sent me the names of these fine people. I hope you enjoy the Notes, and I hope you feel free to write to me. As I have told my readers many times, I love getting mail! Until next week, Nygaard |
|
|
Three weeks ago I mentioned the Justice Policy Institute to recommend their study on violence in the schools. This week I recommend you go and look at their recent study called "Too Little Too Late: President Clinton's Prison Legacy." JPI President Vincent Schiraldi had this to say upon release of the report: "President Clinton stole the show from the ‘tough-on-crime' Republicans. President Clinton was right to call for criminal justice reform in a recent Rolling Stone interview. He was wrong to do so little about it while he was in office." Elsewhere in this issue I ponder the role of the media in shaping the public perception of a President. For a detailed example of the type of information that has, for the past eight years, been pre-empted by news of real-estate deals and soggy cigars, go read this report at http://www.cjcj.org/clinton. |
|
A commentary appeared a couple of weeks ago in the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) by Minneapolis police chief Robert Olson. In responding to a previous commentary that had appeared in the Star Trib, Olson thanked the writer for "complimenting the men and women of the [Minneapolis Police] department by recognizing their extraordinary achievement over the past three years in helping to significantly reduce the chances of our citizens being victimized by crime." As he has before, Chief Olson was attributing the significant drop in the violent crime rates over the past few years to the work of the police. In this comment he only says the police have "helped" to bring down crime rates; previously he's tried to take all the credit. Crime rates are down all over the country, and this cause-and-effect relationship is regularly cited by police chiefs all over the country. Once again I must say it: There is no evidence to support this claim, either here in Minnesota or anywhere else in the country. I've said this before – see Nygaard Notes #66 – but this police/crime rate propaganda continues to be repeated in media everywhere, so I am repeating the facts here. The fact is that there is no expert in the world who knows why violent crime rates are declining, although some may say they do. Crime rates are affected by all sorts of things, like the age of the population, unemployment levels, changes in the drug market, other demographics, general economic trends, and on and on. There are a lot of theories about the decline in violent crime rates in the United States – which has been going on since 1993 – but no one really knows why it's happening. So the next time you hear your mayor claim credit for the drop in crime rates, whether it's Mayor Giuliani in New York or Mayor Murphy in San Diego, notice that they won't even try to back up their boast with facts. They can't. |
|
If there is a silver lining inside the cloud cast by the selection of George W. Bush as "President," it is that some of the corporate media have come out of their 8-year hibernation and begun to do a little bit of meaningful analysis of events in the nation's capital. And I don't mean investigation of White House interns or real-estate deals. That isn't really journalism as much as it is the network News Division's version of "reality TV." By "meaningful analysis" I mean investigation of the effects of the policies and decisions put into place or proposed by a President and his appointees. The silver lining is that the nation's leading journalists don't seem to like "President" Bush too much, so they are going after him, like a good media establishment should. Maybe its because they don't like him; maybe its because he's such a poor elocutionist. Maybe most in the media really do have a "liberal" bias (whatever that means). Whatever the reason, the media so far have been doing a relatively good job of covering the overall tone as well as the specific policies of this administration. If the somewhat tougher coverage that seems to be in store for this president succeeds in driving significant numbers of Americans away from the Republican Party, its up to us to try to see if we can't get them to turn to something more progressive than that other Business Party called the Democrats. I don't think that "something" exists just yet, at least not in my neighborhood, but there's reason to hope that some of the visionary seeds we have planted may begin to sprout under the New McCarthyism represented by "President" George W. Bush. Now THAT would be a real silver lining. |
|
Last week I argued that the standard political labels that we most often hear – "liberal and conservative," "left and right" – are meaningless at best and dangerously misleading at worst. We are fortunate in Minnesota to have a Governor who is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, which allows me to use him as an illustration of how the standard political labels break down pretty quickly if one is so foolish as to attempt to use them to understand something. For example, the Governor of Minnesota has a tolerant stance toward drugs, even leaning toward decriminalization in some cases. He is also pro-choice when it comes to abortion. This makes him seem like a liberal, even a "leftist," to some. On the other hand, his positions on taxes – Cut ‘em! or at least make them less progressive – and on the role of government in general – smaller is always better – would lead many to think that he is some sort of right-wing conservative. This is an impression that would be reinforced by his recent visit to "President" George W. Bush, from which he came away a big fan, by some accounts. If our Governor is not a Democrat and he's not a Republican, what is he? Left-winger? Right-winger? Liberal? Conservative? No wonder people are puzzled by him. If you try to use the familiar terminology, none of it "fits" for a guy like Ventura. That's partly why people voted for him; he was "different." Neither Left Nor Right If politics were like arithmetic, we could "average out" the Governor's various positions and end up arguing that he is a "centrist." Maybe even a "radical centrist," which is a term so ridiculous that I have become rather fond of saying it. The fact is that he is none of these things. But that does not mean his philosophy can't be understood, and even named. To use a word that is already in use, he is essentially a libertarian, which could be understood as a sort of right-wing anarchist. Libertarians don't like government in any form, believing that people are best off when left free to do as they please. That's why they call themselves "libertarians." The funny thing is, when you try to formulate policy based on libertarian principles, it often comes out looking quite Republican. The official Libertarian Party, for example, is big on privatization, deregulation, and "free trade," all of which are dear to the heart of George W. and his cronies in the Republican Party. However, Libertarians also favor legalization of drugs and prostitution, which are a couple of points where some on the radical "right" often meet some members of the radical "left." If this confuses you, take it as further evidence that those tired terms are worse than useless. (As an aside, I might add that the Governor is not a very "good" libertarian. I was present a couple of years ago when he addressed a group of card-carrying Libertarians, and they weren't terribly fond of him. The most memorable exchange was when Ventura suggested that government had some role to play in modern society, and he used the example of building roads. "The private sector is not going to build highways," said the Governor, at which the room erupted with shouts of "Sure it will, if you just get government out of the way!" It ended with the Governor saying something to the effect of, "Well, if you're so smart, how come I'm the Governor, and you're not?" And that was the end of that.) But enough about the Governor. I was just using him to illustrate my point. My point is that there actually are winners and losers in any society, and it is important to clearly understand the basic philosophy that defines the differences between them. If we can do that, then we can begin to understand the ideologies that flow from those philosophies, and then we can begin to predict the behaviors that we might expect from the different sides, often including their positions on specific issues and policies. Out of that process may emerge some language that will be helpful in understanding the current nature of the work of those of us who place ourselves on one side -- the side that values social justice -- language is more useful than the tired cliches of "left," "right," and "center." Next week I will introduce some of the language that I have begun to use to describe the Grand Struggle underway at the moment. In the process, I'll explain how I understand the two sides of that struggle and which side I place myself upon. And it won't be "the Left." |