I genuinely think that the closer analysts get to the actual workings of power, the harder it is for them to step back and actually understand what’s happening
very specifically, getting to know politicians on a personal level really fucks with your understanding of what they’re capable of
it is often the opposite! it doesn’t matter if a politician believes something in private - or, at least, is willing to lie to a reporter that he believes it in private - if he pushes for and passes the opposite publicly
“they won’t really do what they say”
yes they will they just lied to you
Something Matt Yglesias says a lot is that it’s true politicians will often tell you something different in private than what they say in public, but it’s not clear why you’d assume the thing they say at the cocktail party is “truer”
absolutely true
in some ways, actually, the rise of MAGA has helped a lot of Dems get past this (it mostly persists in the Senate) - nobody on the D side is making friends with Matt Gaetz or MTG
I would go a step further with this and say dem politicians struggle with the fact the gop senators/house people will lie to their face.
So many stories from dem insiders about how mitch was done with trump after jan 6th. Only for him to vote to acquit. And they were shocked.
I would go a step further with this and say dem politicians struggle with the fact the gop senators/house people will lie to their face.
So many stories from dem insiders about how mitch was done with trump after jan 6th. Only for him to vote to acquit. And they were shocked.
I have occasionally been approached by a stranger at a bar and offered a share of a criminal enterprise. I've always turned it down because -apart from ethics- why would I think I was so special they'd let me in on it? I'm obviously the mark here.
I think MattyG lacks the humility to think of that.
I don't hang out in bars very often, but (since my sweetie doesn't really follow the NFL or MLB) I generally watch big games at a sports bar. During at least four Super Bowls, I've been offered a piece of one juicy scam or another; I guess I just have that kind of face. I wish I knew why.
(I don't mean to say that politicians lying is a criminal enterprise; I actually think it's an essential part of how the sausage gets made. I just think that accepting that you are part of the crowd, and not in on the game due to your innate specialness, is a skill that many analysts lack.)
Something Matt Yglesias says a lot is that it’s true politicians will often tell you something different in private than what they say in public, but it’s not clear why you’d assume the thing they say at the cocktail party is “truer”
this and the fact that you dedicate your life to something.. and then find out it's not empirical/meritocratic/reason-based/whatever. It's very hard to reach that conclusion about something you're inside.
it's like how so many constitutional law profs pretend scotus cares about arguments/facts.
Several of them have very publicly quit over the past couple years because they aren't willing to pretend that for their students if they don't believe it!
It doesn't help that their incentives are based around getting attention now rather than being correct in their predictions or analysis.
Definitely doesn't help that the human brain is exceedingly bad at recognizing that godawful, frankly evil, people can still be quite personable.
I feel like so many political writers seem to write off concerns about what the actual stakes are because they rub shoulders and get drinks with right wing aides and whatnot. Can't see the forest from the trees.
Journalists really shouldn’t be going to dinners with them or riding in their planes or attending their parties
They need some distance from their subject
obviously the solution is performance based reviews... i.e. if you're wrong too often, you get fired. You know, like the rest of us in the real world. If there's zero repercussions for doing your job poorly, what incentive is there to do it well?
(half snark/half not)
the question I'd have there is, would you grade their wrongness scores on a curve? I mean, if they're ALL wrong, well, that doesn't leave anyone left, does it?
My guess is that after the first few performance reviews, when the new HR policy is applied and after the staff have had a chance to review their performance and perhaps be placed on a review plan, that maybe, staff could adapt to the new standards :-)
having worked as an analyst for over a decade, I think most analysts are just shit. Like real bad at their jobs.
but they are very good at either saying nothing or saying what the people paying them want to hear.
Like how the democrats would be better if they shifted to the right.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” - Upton Sinclair*.
Author, activist, and politician from California’s first Progressive Era.
We live at the dawn of her second.
“California Über Alles!”
We will bury you fash.
Question is why do so many in media know politicians so intimately? It’s a combination of both groups coming from the same social circles and peer groups. Centered around “elite universities.” And entry level jobs filter out anyone who must work to support themselves. So many POVs excluded.
It’s fucking bizarre that two presidents - Carter and Clinton - had to deal with the fact that Sally Quinn finding them socially unacceptable mattered in D.C.
Like Executive Editor of the Washington Post Ben Bradlee’s wife Sally had final say about the president over and above the entire nation.
The same goes for journalists & their CEOs/bosses - thinking there's no way they'd let them or their own industry die [or not protect them personally from Trump] just so they can golden parachute out of there with a fascist economy/permanent tax cuts/protection from burst bubbles as their safety net
