Fact-checking is an excellent idea in theory, but in practice, it's been less useful. The problem is two-fold: 1) sometimes the arguments are so nuanced that it leaves much up to interpretation and 2) the people doing the fact-checking bring their own biases into it.
Two examples from last night's debate.
Navy Debate
Many people think Obama's best line was during the discussion of the Navy. Romney said the Navy was smaller than since 1917 and the Navy is requesting more ships. The larger point was about how the cuts to military spending will impede our ability to defend ourselves. Obama countered that of course we have fewer ships than we used to, the military has advanced technologically, and we no longer need the same military as we had 100 years ago.
So what do the fact-checkers check? The claim that the Navy has the fewest ships since 1917. The fact is basically correct, although the actual minimum was hit in 2007. They concentrate on this fact and then criticize the point because the ships are different, and it's basically a stupid point to make (which it is). The more important point was that Romney said the Navy itself thinks it needs more ships and the Defense Secretary said these cuts would be devastating. Why not concentrate on these points? They better get to what Romney was trying to argue.
Massachusetts Education Policy
For some reason, President Obama and Governor Romney were disputing Romney's policies on education in Massachusetts. Romney claimed that students had great results, and Obama said that Romney had nothing to do with it. Then Romney talked about how he enacted a law allowing good students to go to college for free. Obama said he didn't do that, either.
So the fact-checkers check the first fact but not the second. Of the three I looked at, none even mentioned the second point Romney made.
Factcheck.org
Politifact
Washington Post
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
How Government Harms Consumers
I was talking with a friend of mine a couple of weeks ago. This friend manages an expanding, regional chain of gas station convenience stores. Our discussion was not a political one. He was telling me how his employer discovered that operating car washes can generate as much revenue as their largest convenience store so they had decided to start experimenting with car washes.
Enter special interests. Unfortunately for them (and consumers), there was already an established chain of car washes in the area owned by someone with strong ties to government. Well, the company decided that the bureaucratic expenses would be too high, and decided not to expand.
This is the kind of story that makes conservatives so distrustful of government.
Here's an even worse example of the same phenomenon.
Enter special interests. Unfortunately for them (and consumers), there was already an established chain of car washes in the area owned by someone with strong ties to government. Well, the company decided that the bureaucratic expenses would be too high, and decided not to expand.
This is the kind of story that makes conservatives so distrustful of government.
Here's an even worse example of the same phenomenon.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Unsustainable Monopolies
Sometimes people complain about corporations or countries lowering their prices because they believe those corporations/countries will use the lower prices to drive everyone out of the market and then raise their prices and collect the windfalls. (Free Market) Economists counter that the higher prices will then attract those that left back into the market.
Here's an example of that happening.
Here's an example of that happening.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Candy Crowley Failed
In addition to bad fact-checking, Candy Crowley failed in other aspects of her job.
Probably the most important part of a moderator's job is to guarantee both sides are treated equally. How is it that in each debate, the Democrat gets more talking time than the Republican? Last night, Romney frequently talked over Obama and Crowley. It sounded like he was taking extra time, but it turned out that Obama had 9% more talking time than Romney. Breitbart pointed out that Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times vs. 9 for Obama. Why is that? Especially given the fact that Romney had the floor for less time. What's going on.
Secondly, there were several instances when the candidates didn't answer questions. Both candidates were guilty of this. I'd like to see a debate where the moderator cuts them off after thirty seconds if they're not answering the question. (But when all the moderators are sympathetic to Democrats, maybe I should just be happy that they have as little power as they do).
Also, some of the questions were horrible. That woman who asked about women being paid 72% of what men are being paid. I don't think either candidate answered this question, but it was just a misinformed question. Studies have shown that most of the discrepancy is due to different careers, backgrounds, and life choices, and when you account for all of that, the discrepancy is only ~5%. A good answer would have mentioned all that and said, "If a woman has the exact same job as a man and is paid less, then something needs to be done about that. There's already a method to fix this through the court system. The problem is that no one knows what others make, and this is a cultural problem. We need to develop methods to help increase knowledge of salaries so that people can compare their salaries."
Probably the most important part of a moderator's job is to guarantee both sides are treated equally. How is it that in each debate, the Democrat gets more talking time than the Republican? Last night, Romney frequently talked over Obama and Crowley. It sounded like he was taking extra time, but it turned out that Obama had 9% more talking time than Romney. Breitbart pointed out that Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times vs. 9 for Obama. Why is that? Especially given the fact that Romney had the floor for less time. What's going on.
Secondly, there were several instances when the candidates didn't answer questions. Both candidates were guilty of this. I'd like to see a debate where the moderator cuts them off after thirty seconds if they're not answering the question. (But when all the moderators are sympathetic to Democrats, maybe I should just be happy that they have as little power as they do).
Also, some of the questions were horrible. That woman who asked about women being paid 72% of what men are being paid. I don't think either candidate answered this question, but it was just a misinformed question. Studies have shown that most of the discrepancy is due to different careers, backgrounds, and life choices, and when you account for all of that, the discrepancy is only ~5%. A good answer would have mentioned all that and said, "If a woman has the exact same job as a man and is paid less, then something needs to be done about that. There's already a method to fix this through the court system. The problem is that no one knows what others make, and this is a cultural problem. We need to develop methods to help increase knowledge of salaries so that people can compare their salaries."
Vice Presidential Debate
Vice President Biden won the VP debate, and I think he won it, in large part, by being a demagogue.
After Ryan explained his views on privatizing Social Security, Biden said, "You saw how well that worked." This is how Democrats debate privatizing Social Security--they make it sound risky and scary. "Look what happened when the market crashed! That is what Republicans want to happen to your retirement!"
If I were debating Biden, I would have asked if he had any of his retirement in investments or if he was depending solely on Social Security. Then said, "what we need is a plan that allows for more returns but still maintains a minimum benefit." I am puzzled as to how Republicans can't win this argument. It's a choice! Nobody has to put their money in the stock market!
After Ryan explained his views on privatizing Social Security, Biden said, "You saw how well that worked." This is how Democrats debate privatizing Social Security--they make it sound risky and scary. "Look what happened when the market crashed! That is what Republicans want to happen to your retirement!"
If I were debating Biden, I would have asked if he had any of his retirement in investments or if he was depending solely on Social Security. Then said, "what we need is a plan that allows for more returns but still maintains a minimum benefit." I am puzzled as to how Republicans can't win this argument. It's a choice! Nobody has to put their money in the stock market!
Purpose of Debate Moderator
Before last night, if asked, I would have said I was in favor of fact-checking during a debate. I think it would push candidates to make sure they got their facts right. Someone might argue that candidates can fact check each other, but anyone watching the debate and following the post-debate fact checks will realize that all of the candidates have some combination of outright lies/misrepresentations, flip-flopping, inaccurate statistics, and true statistics that tell only part of the story.
If anything, the moderator should point out outright lies/misrepresentations. The problem with the moderator not doing it is that it's left up to news organizations to do, but I doubt that these conclusions have nearly as much impact as during the debate. Crowley's siding with Obama on Libya was immensely damaging to Mitt Romney (she also said Romney was correct on another point, but the effect was that Romney was mostly wrong and Crowley was throwing him a bone). It turns out Romney was right and Crowley and Obama were wrong. If you look at the transcript, the closest you can get to Obama's argument was that he implied that it was a terrorist attack. He didn't explicitly call it one. Dan Gainor hit the nail on the head when he said, "the actual presidential transcript makes it clear that Obama was doing his best to include the word 'terror' without actually saying the incident was a terror attack."
If Crowley hadn't interjected herself, I bet the polls would have indicated a tie. If moderators don't know the facts, they shouldn't say anything. They're less informed than I would have expected.
If anything, the moderator should point out outright lies/misrepresentations. The problem with the moderator not doing it is that it's left up to news organizations to do, but I doubt that these conclusions have nearly as much impact as during the debate. Crowley's siding with Obama on Libya was immensely damaging to Mitt Romney (she also said Romney was correct on another point, but the effect was that Romney was mostly wrong and Crowley was throwing him a bone). It turns out Romney was right and Crowley and Obama were wrong. If you look at the transcript, the closest you can get to Obama's argument was that he implied that it was a terrorist attack. He didn't explicitly call it one. Dan Gainor hit the nail on the head when he said, "the actual presidential transcript makes it clear that Obama was doing his best to include the word 'terror' without actually saying the incident was a terror attack."
If Crowley hadn't interjected herself, I bet the polls would have indicated a tie. If moderators don't know the facts, they shouldn't say anything. They're less informed than I would have expected.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Filibuster Now! Filibuster Forever!
George Will has frequently argued that the filibuster fits into the framer's idea for the government--that it move very slowly.
I have a different take, though it's also pro-filibuster. If 60 senators can't agree on something, maybe it's not that good for the country. The only time the filibuster is an issue is when legislation can get 50 votes but not 60. Then liberals decry the filibuster because nobody can get anything done.
Many liberals would like to eradicate the filibuster altogether.
How about a compromise. First, I would hope we could agree that laws that will have enormous impacts on the US economy should probably be subject to something more difficult than a simple majority. If not, every time parties change we could see an unhealthy pendulum swing. That kind of uncertainty can't be good for the economy.
How about we eliminate the filibuster, but amend the Constitution to say you need 60 votes in the Senate and 60% of votes in the House to pass legislation that will last more than 10 years. Then, if you have 50 votes, you can at least implement what you like, though only temporarily. But if you have a popular, good idea, it could be implemented on a permanent basis.
I have a different take, though it's also pro-filibuster. If 60 senators can't agree on something, maybe it's not that good for the country. The only time the filibuster is an issue is when legislation can get 50 votes but not 60. Then liberals decry the filibuster because nobody can get anything done.
Many liberals would like to eradicate the filibuster altogether.
How about a compromise. First, I would hope we could agree that laws that will have enormous impacts on the US economy should probably be subject to something more difficult than a simple majority. If not, every time parties change we could see an unhealthy pendulum swing. That kind of uncertainty can't be good for the economy.
How about we eliminate the filibuster, but amend the Constitution to say you need 60 votes in the Senate and 60% of votes in the House to pass legislation that will last more than 10 years. Then, if you have 50 votes, you can at least implement what you like, though only temporarily. But if you have a popular, good idea, it could be implemented on a permanent basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)