What's wrong with MSNBC? (hint: Joe)

By Mustang Bobby

Why are MSNBC's ratings so low? Well, as Alex Parene at Salon suggests, it's not because of Rachel Maddow:

"Morning Joe" is the lowest rated of the big three cable news morning shows in both total viewers and the younger demographic. Fox News' Red Eye — a show Fox airs at 3 in the morning — had more total and 25-54-year-old viewers in April 2013 than "Morning Joe" did. "Morning Joe" in April 2013 was down, from its April 2012 numbers, in total and in young viewers by a greater percentage than the rest of the network as a whole.

I'm not harping on "Morning Joe" because I think the show is representative of everything wrong with contemporary political elite thinking, though it is, but because it illustrates MSNBC's larger problem: It's a political talk show. Every other TV morning show is mostly fluff and weather. "Morning Joe," instead of entertainment news updates, has a former member of Congress wave a newspaper at Mark Halperin for a while. MSNBC's target audience may just be much less interested in listening to people talk about politics in spring 2013 than they were during an election year.

What would you rather wake up to: a perky news anchor shitting rainbows about traffic, weather, and the latest on Justin Bieber, or Joe Scarborough ranting to Mark Halperin about Benghazi! and the socialism of Obamacare? Granted, the morning crew at Fox and Friends isn't exactly Mensa in the Morning, but at least they're sitting on a couch.

MSNBC's biggest problem is that their target audience — progressives or at least those who don't care for Fox's rabid partisanship — aren't a mass communication major market. They don't listen to talk radio unless it's interrupted by a pledge drive:

MSNBC is actually making some good decisions, lately, from the point of view of someone who'd like (talking head) cable news to be better. And anyone who says the network's failing because of liberalism should probably have to account for the fact that the channel's highest-rated show remains Rachel Maddow's. (Followed by O'Donnell, who really is the insufferable smug self-satisfied liberal caricature everyone thinks all of MSNBC is.)

But do you know who watches cable news all day? And at prime time? When there's not an election on, or a war, or some terrorism? Older conservative people. If MSNBC wants better ratings, it'll either have to train a generation to want to pay attention to political years all the time, or it'll have to produce a scripted show about zombies.

Maybe that's why they run "Caught on Tape" all weekend. Add in some undead and you've got a hit.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

The end of history

By Frank Moraes

A couple of nights ago on The Last Word, Lawrence O'Donnell presented a rewrite where he attacked conservatives—Bill O'Reilly in particular—about the one thing that makes them conservatives. The clip is below and it is worth watching. He says that conservatives always think that however things are, that is how they should be. So when there was slavery, well, that is how it should be. How could anyone have improved on the life of America in 1860? And similarly today, it is right and fitting for fifty million Americans to go without healthcare and for most of the rest to be one illness away from medical bankruptcy.

This is what I call "the end of history." It is the belief that all of history was leading up to the present. We aren't going somewhere, we havearrived. And for those in power, I guess the case can be made. But for the rest of us? I don't think we only need tinkering around the edges. In particular, I'm thinking more and more that all markets are turning into winner-take-all. These are markets where those at the top make ridiculous amounts of money, while all the rest barely get by. Think: violin players. We effectively have the same sort of thing going on with other areas that should not be winner-take-all markets. For example, high tech has become a place where big companies use government policy to stifle small companies.

This is why we must not allow conservatives to claim that they are for free markets. They are for anything but. The only time they are for "free markets" is when it helps powerful installed interests. Take for example, "free trade" agreements. These are agreements to allow free trade in, say, tomatoes. But they don't allow free trade in medicine, law, teaching, or anything else that would hurt American elites but help American poor. So it is critical to see conservatism for what it is and not for what it claims to be.

Read more »

Newt refuses to admit he got it totally wrong on Clinton tax hikes on the rich

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He may fashion himself a historian, but really he's just a partisan revisionist, particularly when it comes to himself:

On Sunday, during an appearance on Meet The Press, MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell confronted Newt Gingrich for falsely predicting in 1993 that the economy would suffer if then-President Bill Clinton raised marginal tax rates.

Republican are making a similar argument against President Obama's call to raise marginal tax rates on the richest Americans, even though the economy and jobs grew exponentially during the Clinton years when the top marginal tax rate was at 39.6 percent for the top income earners.

Well done, Mr. O'Donnell, for refusing to let Newt get away with his usual bullshit.

Lawrence O'Donnell as an actor on The West Wing

By Richard K. Barry

Here's a little diversion from our daily cares. I was watching Lawrence O'Donnell's show last night on MSNBC, as I frequently do. It is called, as you may know, The Last Word. I was well aware of the fact that he was closely associated with the television drama The West Wing, as a story editor, writer, and co-producer. I must say that I was very surprised when he said he also did a brief acting stint on the show.

I fancy myself quite familiar with every season and could not imagine what he was referring to. When he mentioned he played Josiah Bartlet's father in a flashback sequence on the episode "Two Cathedrals," I was amazed. I remembered it well, and remembered the character, but hadn't put it together.

I went to YouTube, found it, and there he was. He did not a bad job, actually. Judge for yourself. 

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

The absurdity of the royal wedding: monarchy v. democracy

By: R.K. Barry

Last night Lawrence O'Donnell, on The Last Word, did what I thought was a fabulous job of questioning America's interest in the upcoming Royal Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton.

Frankly, I don't care what some people might want to do to pass the time. I'm sure I have hobbies and such that are of little interest to others. But O'Donnell wasn't simply talking about the fact that there are more important things to worry about. His comments were not of the more mundane nature that "some people waste their time watching the adventures of Snooki on the 'Jersey Shore,'" as much as that fact does amaze me.

Rather, he was making the point that America fought a revolution to toss out the British monarchy, a form of government based not on the democratic principles we profess to hold dear but on heredity. Monarchy is a form of government that expressly deems some people, by virtue of birth, better than others and thus fit to rule. This has historically justified the mistreatment of peoples all across the world simply because they were considered to be of a lower station and fodder to promote the glory of the select few.

If there is anything less consistent with the democratic political values that Americans claim to hold, I don't know what it is.

Perhaps you will say that this is no longer the case in practical terms - that the Royal Family is now just for show. But why, as O'Donnell argues, would we stand and applaud the wretched remnants of this pernicious form of government?

Unless, of course, many are not thinking about this in a critical way but simply want to enjoy a good party. I guess that's it.

Below are the comments made by O'Donnell followed by some hilarious remarks by Jerry Seinfeld. I encourage you to watch to the end.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost)

Are we all socialists now? Glenn Beck, Lawrence O’Donnell, and the politics of name-calling

By R.K. Barry

MSNBC political commentator Lawrence O'Donnell recently identified himself as a socialist in an on-air discussion with prominent blogger Glenn Greenwald. Whatever his motivation, one result of this self-identification may be to begin the process of reclaiming a term that the right has been able to completely remove from our political landscape. 

It would be interesting if this started a more public discussion about what this term means and how an examination of its main points might be useful. O'Donnell was not, I am sure, unaware that this would all be red meat to certain of those on the right who don't care how embarrassing they appear to others.

You would not be surprised to learn that Glenn Beck rose to the bait. No analysis, no thought at all, just silly Beckian name calling. Quelle surprise! Has anyone else noticed that Beck comes across mostly like a bratty nine-year old hell-bent on annoying his siblings? 

To call someone a socialist in America has always been just about on a par with saying that the person kicks puppies as a hobby or steals lunch money from five-year olds as a way to make a living. There has never been much debate. Just launch the epithet and watch the subject of the attack reel in horror and protest vigorously. 

In point of fact, the term "socialist" is just too complicated, ambiguous, and multi-faceted to really mean much of anything specific in the modern context. But it does mean something. And if you happen to live in Europe or Canada, the term can actually be a conversation starter rather than a dirty name called to make cheap political points and shut down any further discussion. 

At the risk of oversimplification, most of the people I know who either identify with the term or look favourably upon it consider the power of corporations, the gross concentration of wealth, estimation of life chances tied directly to socio-economic class, the systemic inequities and terrible degradation endured by the underclass in capitalist society, etc., etc., as being circumstances that require some degree of state power to remedy. 

Not long ago, Newsweek magazine ran a cover story stating that "We Are All Socialists Now," and the right-wing howled. But obviously Newsweek was right, up to a point. We have government pension systems, Medicare, progressive income taxes, and all manner of government activity that socializes risk, and, yes, redistributes wealth. Now we even have health-care reform, and though it is hardly socialized medicine, it moves in that direction. In a manner of speaking, we are all socialists now. 

If we are to be honest, decades ago capitalist countries realized that in order for them to function at all, certain kinds of government intervention would be necessary: child labour laws, occupational health and safety regulations, social security legislation, all programs under the general heading of "welfare," etc. Capitalism just proved too blunt an instrument not to be counterbalanced by collective action in some way. 

Some sort of interventionist state has been a reality for a long time. We don't even need to go into the fact that George W. Bush understood as well as President Obama that the federal government would have to spend its way out of the current recession. The hard right claims not to approve in either case, but they're just wrong. 

A lot of people who identify themselves as socialist may not think that nationalizing major industries is a good idea, or that a command economy run by government is workable, or that there is a very good alternative to capitalist markets. Just as those who consider themselves more pro-capitalist want the latitude to consider a range of policy tools, self-described socialists can reserve the same right. 

But what we should all understand is that we live in a mixed economy. The private sector does a lot of things. Government does a lot of things. The key is in working towards a better balance between them that might just result in greater numbers of people having more than a slim chance of living a decent life. 

The point I am trying to make is actually quite simple. I have been calling myself a socialist for a long time, though I recognize it is an imperfect term. The important thing for me is that it suggests a constellation of ideas that we should welcome into the mix, such as: how much government intervention is justifiable in the lives of Americans; what limits should we place on private property for the sake of the common good; are there enterprises that might best be run by the government, like health care; are there goods so basic that they might be provided by government, perhaps like housing? I would want to talk about what factory owners owe local communities when they contemplate pulling up stakes after many years. I would want to talk about how governments ought to work with business to help create jobs. All kinds of stuff. 

Having the tools to explore these questions is what the concept of socialism makes possible. 

Yes, we can look at certain strains of socialism and try to connect them to state communism and then say that anyone who wants to argue for an expanded government role in the economy in the early part of the 21st century is a Stalinist in waiting, but, with all due respect to Professor Hayek, that would be silly. We might as well say that every capitalist is no better than a factory owner in some sort of 19th-century Dickensian hell or at least on the slippery slope to becoming one. 

Times change. The meaning of words changes. Like it or not, what the Newsweek headline should have read is that "We Are All More or Less Capitalist and More or Less Socialist Now." (I know. I'll never get a job as a headline writer). 

These days, any discussion about the relative merits of capitalism and socialism is really about how much government involvement in the economy is advisable. We can't know in advance. We have to take every case as it comes and work it out. 

If being a socialist means that I am more inclined to think that government should have an expanded role in ensuring that greater and greater numbers of Americans have a chance at a good life, then, along with Lawrence O'Donnell, I'm a socialist. 

Mostly I just want to ask a lot of questions to see where the answers take us. I think socialism provides some tools to help us do this. Nothing to be afraid of. 

But calling someone a socialist as a way to marginalize their ideas does nothing to help us find the answers we need. It's just dumb and par for the course for too many on the right.