Police and State

Two Sunday articles worth reading:

First, for the Washington Post David Greenberg writes about Rudy Giuliani and the misleading meme that mainstream press have built around him: Namely, that Giuliani is liberal on various social issues. He's not. I think the case is even worse than Greenberg writes: If an authoritarian like Giuliani is treated so gingerly by even ostensibly nonpartisan media outlets (e.g., ABC News) then it's quite possible that none of the media flaws that Republicans have been able to game since at least 2000 have been corrected.

It's been my experience growing up in the South that conservatives who do not know anything about politics and do not want to be tainted by negative associations with movement conservatism but who nevertheless reliably vote for Republicans will declare themselves "fiscally conservative, socially liberal," and seek politicians who project a similar image. I fear that a quote-unquote fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republican would be a considerable draw for voters who have voiced frustration with the Bush administration.

Of course, no such candidate exists among the standing GOP field, leaving traditionally conservative to moderate voters with the option of staying home, endorsing a Democrat, or holding their noses while they vote Republican. Any media that can polish a turd like Giuliani can sustain the longstanding image of Hillary Clinton as a cackling bitch—leaving Giuliani as the least-bad option for a lot of Americans who are uncomfortable with but not offended by the state of the republic.

Everyone will be familiar by now with Tyler Cowan's Angry Ape theory of electoral politics: "Most swing voters perceive America as being at war and so they demand toughness. They demand An Angry Ape, if not at every moment in time, at least in principle." Giuliani is an angry ape all the time but he has been cast by the media as a fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidate who can play the angry ape when need be. From this point looking forward, 2008 looks like a contest for which candidate the Christian right finds less objectionable. Do they splinter, giving the race to Clinton, or stay quiet about their objections?

And in Salon, Glenn Greenwald writes about an exchange with Col. Steven Boylan, spokesperson for General David Petraeus. It's really amazing that a PR person would lie to a reporter, get caught lying, then be smug about it be so smug when the available evidence strongly suggests he has been caught lying to a reporter. But Greenwald's right: Worse is that Boylan seems to think that journalists must seek permission before they report things. "As we quickly found out, you published our email conversation without asking, without permission—just another case in point to illustrate your lack of standards and ethics," says Boylan, in response to . . . an e-mail from a journalist asking for information. That's funny! Boylan forgot that not all journalists are shills!

UPDATE: I won't call Boylan a liar before Greenwald does.