In other words, Webb believes that the globalized economic system is NOT truly "free," and that this is not "fair" in any way, shape or form. Jim Webb is correct. Unfortunately, the Post simply doesn't get it. For instance, the Post's labeling of "fair trade" advocates like Jim Webb - and many others, myself included - as "strident populis[ts] on trade policy" is utterly ridiculous. Informed, smart "fair traders" are not isolationists or xenophobes in any way. However, we DO want protections in our trade agreements for labor rights, human rights, and the environment. We do NOT want globalization, outsourcing, etc. to end up as a Wal Mart-ization of our economy or a sickening "race to the bottom" for American wages/standards of living.
Sadly, the Post is almost blindly pro-globalization and pro-"free trade." All in all, the paper epitomizes the "corporate media" through and through. And no, that is NOT meant as a compliment.
On another subject, it is worth recalling that the Post strongly supported the invasion of Iraq. And, as with many other "mainstream media" outlets, the Post overall did a shoddy, lazy, irresponsible job of looking critically at the facts leading up to the war. No wonder the Post supported the invasion when it didn't question the Administration's (false) assertions regarding (nonexistent) WMD, (nonexistent) ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda, etc. Perhaps that's Harris Miller's excuse as well.
Interestingly, just like the Post, Miller is now trying to "walk back the cat" on his strong support for invading Iraq and to make amends. Thus, Miller has resorted to gimmicks like calling for Don Rumsfeld's resignation, even though everyone knows that isn't going to happen and that the problem is much broader regardless. Unfortunately, for the thousands of American soldiers who have been killed or wounded over there, and the hundreds of billions of dollars we've wasted, it's too late to walk back the cat on this one.
By the way, the Post's "endorsement" of Miller has many nice things to say about Jim Webb. For instance, the Post (ironically) notes that Webb "was an early and prescient critic of the war in Iraq and its likely consequences." The Post also points out what we all have come to know, that Webb "is an undoubtedly compelling figure" - "a scrappy former Marine and much-decorated Vietnam veteran with impressive literary credentials and an Emmy Award to his name."
On economics, the Post argues that Webb is "right to focus concern on the widening disparities of Americans' income and wealth," but then shies away from Webb's "ideas about the problem's causes and possible antitodes." Of course, the Post doesn't spell out what its own "ideas" to deal with widening income disparities in the globalized economy might be, nor does it spell out Miller's. Perhaps because they don't have any "ideas" in this area, except more NAFTA, CAFTA, and "McWorld" in general? What's the saying, when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging? Apparently, the Washington Post and Harris Miller never heard that one.
On Miller, the Post describes him in unflattering terms - "a longtime Democratic party apparatchik" with "deficits in dash and elan" who is running in "an inopportune year for a candidate to have the word "lobbyist" appended to one's name." Wow. The Post also all but admits that Miller has no shot at defeating George Allen. This is an "endorsement?" Huh?
All in all, the Post editorial today is a strange, incoherent, intellectually garbled, mess. Who knows what on earth it means, except that the Post loves globalization, free trade, and pro-corporate Washington "apparatchiks." And to think that the Post used to be one of America's greatest newspapers, with crusading journalists like Woodward and Bernstein, in its heyday. Very sad.
[UPDATE: Greg Priddy has some interesting thoughts on this.
The WaPo editorial page has pretty much a neoconservative viewpoint on foreign policy, and has been going into ever-increasing contortions over the past three years trying to justify their support of the invasion of Iraq -- arguing that it will eventually bear fruit in terms of transforming the Middle East politically.Jim Webb scares the c*** out of the neocons and Fred Hiatt et al at the Post, because if he were a Senator, he'd be a voice of common sense on foriegn policy -- and ask the sort of tough questions they fear about sending Americans off to die in poorly thought out ideological crusades like trying to 'transform the Middle East' by occupying Iraq.
The Board does not necessarily influence editorial policy. And Buffett helped save the Post when it was in financial trouble and became a close friend of Kay Graham. He introduced her to Bill gates -- they used to play bridge together, and if memory serves were at a gettogether where bridge was on the agenda when she had the collapse that lead to her death.
Done.
For some reason, I don't think that the WaPo Editorial Staff needs Jim Webb's help in the Senate. They like things how they are. Trust me, nobody on that staff is on welfare. They just want somebody who will keep the wealthy in power.
I wrote Hiatt this morning and rec'd the following response:
"Dear Mr. Terp,
The ombudsman forwarded your letter to me (the editorial page editor). I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your comments.
As you say, we did note Webb's early leadership on the Iraq question, and for some voters that may be the decisive factor, which I think is entirely legitimate. In terms of what policies they would advocate on Iraq now, I do not see much difference between the candidates.
You also discuss the question of electability. This too is a legitimate basis for voters to decide on--but I don't think it should be the basis of an editorial endorsement. Our job, as I see it, is to give our best assessment of who would be the better senator, and why. While respecting
the achievements of both candidates, our assessment overall was as we stated. I know some readers will disagree; others may agree but make a different judgment based on who they think has the best shot in November.
Best,
Fred Hiatt"
---
I still disagree with the editor's conclusion (i.e. that Harris Miller is the better candidate), but I'm willing to take his explanation at face value (i.e. that he honestly believes what he believes).
The reality is that the Post is an opinion leader and that it will sway some voters. In some sense the damage is already done. If Webb does win, it would be a help in the general election if the Post editorial staff is a little more sympathetic to the arguments for his candidacy. How is this result achieved?
Here's a hint . . .
The iron fisted approach (e.g. "WaPost you are full of s&#t!"), will not work any wonders--it will harden biases against Webb in the liberal media (yes, these are probably Carter liberals--which is one reason they probably embraced Miller).
The "respectfully disagree, and here's why" approach at least signals to the editorial board that Webb is a serious candidate supported by serious voters.
Part of Webb's difficulty is that there is a bias against him--many "serious" folks in the establishment media, do not take his candidacy seriously in part because of a perception that he is not supported by "serious" people. How do you go about changing biases and attitudes?
The real reason I suspect is that Miller knows that churning out detailed policy positions whether or not he ever thought about them seems impressive, as if he knows what he's advocating (not). Miller will give you a position on any issue, probably even a non-existent one -- which reminds me of tests of politicians and general public on precisely such matters, support of non-existent issues, bills or people.
Webb will not speak to an issue until he understand it -- perhaps if we had a few more on the Hill like that, besides far less bloviation they might actually READ some of these bad bills and thus stop them before they become law.
The question is--there are serious people who do not take Webb seriously--how do we change their biased perception against Webb? Part of the way to achieve this objective is through the soft power of well-reasoned, polite persuasion. I believe the best approach is to give people like the Post editorial staff the benefit of the doubt.
BTW, my original post wasn't intended to be condescending to RK readers. I want to see Webb win as badly as everyone else. I think it was a mistake in the editorial board's judgment to place a supreme value on Webb's economic policy at the exclusion of his many other merits. I also suspect that they supported Miller, in part, because Miller is very well skilled at manipulate "smart" people. I'm sure that Miller went into his meeting with the Post editors glad-handing them to death, telling them how great they were, how much he would value their endorsement, etc, etc. I doubt that Webb took this approach, which is yet another reason he'd make a great representative. He's not a skilled B.S. artist or ego-stroker.