29 June 2000

The mainstream media in this country just aren't terribly bright.  Or insightful.   Nevertheless, they *think* they are both, which at times is amusing, and at times is annoying as hell.

Several months ago, the mainstream media was writing off George Bush because he and McCain had "hopelessly fractured" the Republican Party.  Now, I will repeat -- does anyone even remember John McCain now, and does anyone remember a time since Reagan when the Republicans were so behind their eventual nominee (over 90% support among Republicans, contrasted with support in the 70s currently for Al Gore, a sitting vice-president in times of prosperity)?  I used my site's new search engine to figure out that I  wrote over a month ago how the media was just dead wrong about this, how George Bush had picked an issue (partial privatization of social security) that was politically astute -- and that Paul Gigot (one of the few bright media stars) was the only person who had really picked up on this.

Now, the media is begrudgingly giving credit to Bush for tackling Social Security in a serious manner and for uniting the Republican Party.  But rather than admit they were wrong before, they've decided to give us further examples of their brilliance by pointing out how this election is "strikingly similar" to two others:  Nixon-Kennedy and Bush-Dukakis.  I thought several weeks ago after I first heard  this comparison made that everyone would have a good laugh and it would go away.  But now, I continue to see it in print, and on popular television news shows (last night on CNBC, for example).  It's just dumb.  Here's why:

Yes, Nixon-Kennedy is similar in that Nixon was a sitting Vice-President who had no appeal on a personal level but was an incumbent during popular times, and that Kennedy was a member of a political family.  Dissimilarities:  1) Nixon differed from his boss in many substantive areas and was known as being far stronger -- and far more conservative -- on policy (contrasted with Gore, whose policy preferences change each day in reaction to a growing Bush lead and focus groups -- hence, his opposition to Bush's social security plan initially as "risky" and his advancement weeks later after getting pummeled in the polls of his own "me too" plan); 2) Kennedy was a youthful, charismatic Senator and a powerful orator (contrasted with Bush, who is not a Senator, is not particularly charismatic, and is a competent speaker at best, certainly better than his father but certainly no JFK, or Reagan, or Clinton). 

And yes, Bush-Dukakis is similar in that a sitting Vice-President during times of prosperity was trailing a popular governor of a significant state.  Dissimilarities:   1) Bush ran specifically on the mantra that he was the natural choice to continue to fight the Reagan Revolution (contrasted with Gore, who tries to take credit for the economy while avoiding references to a scandal-ridden administration); 2) an early lead by Dukakis was obliterated as soon as Bush pointed out this popular governor's left-wing fanaticism:  proponent of stiff gun control, proponent of welfare, opponent of death penalty,  opponent of defense buildup including the stealth bomber, opponent of supply-side economics (contrast this with the fact that Bush continues to gain in the polls in every substantive policy area, and that he is, thus far, successfully differentiating himself from Gore in proffering social policy that increases the role of the individual and decreases the role of government, from social security to education; during Bush-Dukakis, to the extent ANYONE offered that message, it was Bush!).

In short, these elections from the past have a couple or three highly superficial similarities to the Bush-Gore campaign.  Otherwise, they are so strikingly DISSIMILAR that it is almost amazing to me that the media continues to beat this drum about "striking similarities."  It's further proof to me that the mainstream media are not very bright people.  But then again, what should I expect from people whose only real educational training is to be able to communicate on a sixth-grade level?