Adventures in Self-Parody: Robert J. Samuelson, Still the Truth-Seeker After All These Years

Robert J. ("If he were Paul, he'd be dead now") Samuelson looks back on his four decades in journamalism, and falls in love with himself all over again:

This was a common conceit among journalists of my generation. We would reveal what was hidden, muddled or distorted. The truth would set everyone free...I started with the naive notion that, by exposing and explaining how the world worked, I would in some small way contribute to better government and a saner society. What I discovered firsthand is what I already knew intuitively: Democracy is a messy, often shortsighted, unreasoned and selfish process. People have interests, beliefs and prejudices that, once firmly entrenched, are not easily dislodged -- and certainly not by logic or evidence...Good information does not inexorably lead to good government.

Robert J. Samuelson's firmly entrenched belief that the solution to most of our fiscal ills is to cut Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements is, of course, a perfect example.

Offended by many liberal and conservative dogmas, I aspire to the "sensible center."

The "sensible center."  Uhhuh.  No, I have no idea what he thinks the "sensible center" is between those who want to use government to improve the lives of Americans, and those who are willing to torpedo government.

Whether I succeed, I'm still trying to do what I've always done: Explain things to myself and my readers; provide enough information so that even people who reject my viewpoint and values will emerge knowing more.

Epic fail.  One emerges from a Robert Samuelson op-ed more ignorant (of everything except his axes to grind) than one started. 

In a democracy, information is power, but you can never know whether it will make us better or worse off. Journalism's contribution, though not always constructive, is essential. At our best, we do serve as watchdogs at all levels: Watergate is but one spectacular example.

And then there's the target-rich environment of the Bush Administration that provided the potential fodder for a dozen Watergates and a hundred lesser -gates, while establishment journalism looked the other way. We haven't seen much of your 'best' lately.

We do illuminate crucial facts and clarify popular confusions.

But it's hard to think of many recent examples.

But too often, our conformist and crusading instincts make us complicit in episodes of collective folly, delusion or vengeance.

Can't argue there.

For me, there remains the personal pleasure of discovery and a faith that the unfettered pursuit of truth -- no matter how contentious or futile -- has stand-alone meaning. It's called freedom.

!

Comments

[Sir Charles]

Sorry for no posting. I was up in NYC for a couple of days having a family reunion of sorts. It was a madhouse in the city. Hopefully a sign of ecnomic recovery brewing.

I actually went to the Post page and read the article (I agree with the no links move by the way) and noticed Samuelson's recent output, all of which is devoted to atacking Obama. The guy is just a right wing putz and not a terribly bright one.

The idea that he was going to be a source of enlightenment to the huddled masses is laughable. I was hoping that this column was his farewell address -- alas, not to be.

[oddjob]

I've never heard him of him, and as is usually the case with WaPo op-ed pundits, it appears my life is the better for it, so I'll keep it that way.

[Mandos]

He actually said "sensible center"? Somehow I don't think he knows that that term is only to be used ironically...

[Sir Charles]

I didn't know you could actually utter those two words together without using air quotes.

[oddjob]

The sensible center is always only an irony?

(Said question is not to be confused with the assumption that conservaDems are necessarily centrists, nor should one assume that oddjob agrees with above quoted pundit's idea of what the center may or may not be.)

[litbrit]

And then there's the target-rich environment of the Bush Administration that provided the potential fodder for a dozen Watergates and a hundred lesser -gates, while establishment journalism looked the other way.

YES. Yes indeed.

The advent of the previous presidency--and the concomitant widespread media deference to a lying, sociopathic idiot child sporting a faux cowboy persona and an equally faux Texan drawl--marked the beginning of the end of my admiration for American journalism (in general, of course--there were, and still are, various notable exceptions).

I remember writing to our once-liberal and once-widely-admired local newspaper, The St. Petersburg Times, about various Bush-related and Bush-created outrages back in the day; rarely did they publish anything, and once, I heard from a reporter via e-mail, saying "there are lots of theories about this presidency but we'll probably never know the complete truth about everything". Huh? Isn't that your bloody job--to find the truth and shine a light on it? Even before 9/11, there was a palpable reluctance on their part to print or repeat anything critical of Bush whatsoever. Forget about any in-depth reporting on the many, many "irregularities" that surrounded the 2000 election. There were certain hot potatoes, it seemed, that no journalamist would touch. Or, I should say, was permitted to touch.

I used to idolize certain anchors and writers. Journalism (and "mass-com") was my chosen field of study in university. Imagine how it felt, not that many years later, to see everything I'd been taught about journalistic ethics and professionalism getting pissed-on and discarded--by so-called journalists! Ugh.

[Mandos]

Well, if anyone can define what the "sensible center" is, I'd like to see it. It's almost always used by people who want to espouse right-wing views without owning up to the fact that they're ideological cousins of the teabaggers.

[oddjob]

Unless you're utterly apolitical everyone's an ideological cousin of everyone else sooner or later. It all depends upon your point of view.

[Corvus9]

Out of curiosity, anyone have any idea was the center actually is, right now? Like, the fiftieth and fifty-first votes in the Senate. Who are they. One of the reasons our politics is so diseased (among many), is that we have been conditioned to think of people like Nelson and Snowe as "Centrists," since they lie on the edge of the two parties, but, because the parties are in such vastly different levels of favor, they actual represent positions that are ten percent more conservative (60-50) than our actual political center. It'd be kind of interesting to know what policies are supported by the people who, in a just world, would count as the middle of public opinion.

[Corvus9]

And I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas.

[Sir Charles]

Corvus,

I would imagine it would be someone like Byron Dorgan, Kent Conrad, or Claire McCaskill.

And Merry Christmas (and war thereon) to you.

[low-tech cyclist]

SC - Claire McCaskill would probably be a good candidate for the 51st vote in the Senate for many of the things we'd want to see enacted. Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad, not so much - but for opposite reasons. Despite their both being Dems from North Dakota, Dorgan seems to be a genuine liberal who would be providing some of the push for the things we support, while Conrad's a corporate tool.

[Sir Charles]

Those North Dakota dudes all look alike to me.