I've been thinking a bit about punditry. Particularly, why it is that liberals aren't taken seriously ....
I was reading my usual morning fare which includes a number of economics blogs. Several are written by dyed-in-the-wool bears who often make very dire prognostications. I find myself dismissing them as Chicken Little's. But unfortunately, they're usually correct eventually.
So why is it that a thinker/writer/pundit can be both correct and dismissed? And why particularly on the progressive side?
I think the answer lies in the fact that change occurs much more slowly than the ability of people to evaluate the future. Take for example health care. I remember in the mid 80's as a newish therapists noticing the advent of "managed care". At the time, I felt (and often said) that the state of health care was in the toilet and going down the drain. Coverages for treatments were harder to get, reimbursement rates dropped, and quality of care began deteriorating. Many analysts and thinkers noted these changes and boldly predicted a health care meltdown. But in the body politic, voters confronted the news with a yawn. As progressives like Teddy Kennedy began pushing for universal health care, he was seen as "fringy" and hyperbolic as he predicted a health care meltdown.
Fast forward to today and we have had, in fact, a health care meltdown. But it's occurring so slowly that people are adapting on the way down. Thus we now just take it as normal that "xyz isn't covered" and that service stinks, that insurance companies routinely screw people. But has anyone noticed that Ted Kennedy was right? Has his reputation in the general public changed materially because he was correct?
I think it's the nature of progressives to look towards the future, desire change to improve things that they see as flawed. If you look far enough into the future, the flaws look like an avalanche of crappola that spurs progressives to end up sounding like Chicken Littles. Contrast that with conservatives who embrace the slow pace of change (and in fact often want to go backwards) and thus do not seem as often to fall victim to the reputations of being hyperbolic.
I could point out other issues like the economy, inflation, credit, civil liberties, veterans care, infrastructure and on and on. I think we're witnessing nothing short of the fall of a great nation into mediocrity. A bold statement about the present and the future that seems hyperbolic given that most people's lives are still relatively good. And if you make a similar statement, you are immediately labeled by the great middle as "fringy".
I guess it's not until a gathering of forces in the form of a storm of some sort hits that people begin to believe all the apparent hyperbolic predictions of prognosticators. And even then, real change will be slow. And while the substance of predictions comes to pass, the reputations of those who make the predictions usually sticks forever.
One last example. T. Boone Pickens, the oil barron, made a prediction awhile back that everyone thought was nuts. But because it was said by him, it got a whole bunch of press. He predicted oil would hit $80/barrel. The reaction to his prediction fell into the category of "we think T. Boone may have lost it". When interviewed the other day he wryly said something along the lines that he was going to have to now rethink that prediction. He said it with a slight smile.
Added: Want a here/now example? Read this. And while his thinking is reasoned and backed with solid data, everyone will yawn about it as long as they can drive their SUV's. And thus, valuable time is lost (more valuable time) even though the imminence of the event is apparent, including it's far reaching consequences.
Read More...
Summary only...
