by hilzoy
Via Sadly No and Atrios, a sad illustration of the costs of social promotion: one Jake Tapper. Tapper ought to be failing his second grade Language Arts class for the thirty-fourth consecutive year, but thanks to the soft bigotry of low expectations, he ended up as ABC's Senior National Correspondent instead. If he had gotten out of school without the ability to do basic math and had ended up as a NASA engineer, his ignorance would harm people in direct and obvious ways. The fact that he's a journalist without basic reading comprehension skills means that the damage he can do is less obvious than a rocket flaming out in mid-descent. But it does not make that damage less real.
Here's the passage Mr. Tapper took it upon himself to interpret:
"“Everybody knows that global warming is real,” Mr. Clinton said, giving a shout-out to Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, “but we cannot solve it alone.”“And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada — the rich counties — would say, ‘OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.’ We could do that.
“But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world’s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work."
This is not an unusual way to frame a point: (a) here's a problem; (b) some might say that we should do Dumb Response X in response; (c) but in fact, we should do Smart Response Y. How dumb do you have to be to imagine that when someone says this, they are in fact advocating Dumb Response X? Answer: As dumb as Jake Tapper. Here's his take on it:
"Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.” At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? “Slow down our economy”? I don’t really think there’s much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….So was this a moment of candor?
He went on to say that his the U.S. — and those countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases — could ultimately increase jobs and raise wages with a good energy plan. So there was something of a contradiction there. Or perhaps he mis-spoke. Or perhaps this characterization was a description of what would happen if there isn’t a worldwide effort…I’m not quite certain."
Wow: a novel interpretive principle. Let's try it on some other texts. Here, for instance, is Barack Obama:
"I know it is tempting - after another presidency by a man named George Bush - to simply turn back the clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th Century. There are those will tell us that our Party should nominate someone who is more practiced in the art of pursuing power; that's it's not yet our turn or our time. There was also a time when Caroline Kennedy's father was counseled by a former President to “be patient,” and to step aside for “someone with greater experience.” But John F. Kennedy responded by saying, “The world is changing. The old ways will not do…It is time for a new generation of leadership.”"
In this speech, Barack Obama somewhat surprisingly comes out in favor of "turning back the clock" and "building a bridge back to the 20th Century". Yet he goes on to say that "the world is changing". Likewise, first he says that "it's not yet our turn", but then he says that "it is time for a new generation of leadership." There is a contradiction here. Or perhaps he misspoke. I'm not quite certain.
Here comes another glaring contradiction. this time from the President himself:
"Now, I know some people doubt the universal appeal of liberty, or worry that the Middle East isn't ready for it. Others believe that America's presence is destabilizing, and that if the United States would just leave a place like Iraq those who kill our troops or target civilians would no longer threaten us. Today I'm going to address these arguments. I'm going to describe why helping the young democracies of the Middle East stand up to violent Islamic extremists is the only realistic path to a safer world for the American people. I'm going to try to provide some historical perspective to show there is a precedent for the hard and necessary work we're doing, and why I have such confidence in the fact we'll be successful."
So here, by Tapper Rules of Interpretation™, we have the President making the following claims: Liberty has no universal appeal; the Middle East is not ready for liberty; America's presence there, is destabilizing; if we just left, our enemies would no longer threaten us; and yet, despite all this, "helping the young democracies of the Middle East stand up to violent Islamic extremists is the only realistic path to a safer world for the American people."
Pretty strange that no one picked up on the fact that Bush disavowed so many of his basic beliefs in this speech, and then contradicted himself just a few lines later. Or, well, whatever.
Interpreting texts a la Tapper is kind of fun, once you get the hang of it. And when anyone calls you on it, you can just pout and say: Wow, I hardly know how to take this. All I'm trying to do is to understand...
Feel free to leave your own examples of the Tapper Rules™ in action in comments.
Maybe if someone paid Jack he would do gooder at papers.
Hillary should have said sere more when talking about global warming.
Posted by: dkg | January 31, 2008 at 04:11 PM
When I was a kid, my mother recommended that I follow my friends in jumping off of a bridge.
I never trusted her again after that.
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | January 31, 2008 at 04:49 PM
Nice analysis, Hilzoy.
They've actually deleted several critical (but hardly profane) comments over at Tapper's follow-up post (also linked at S,N!).
Posted by: Batocchio | January 31, 2008 at 05:23 PM
When I was a kid, my mother recommended that I follow my friends in jumping off of a bridge.
Apparently if my husband and his brothers complained of being bored as children, their father would tell them to 'go and play in the traffic'.
Posted by: magistra | January 31, 2008 at 05:38 PM
And (as GMT noted in comments over at Political Animal) Tapper was also "tapped" to report on a bogus study from National Journal dubbing Obama the "most liberal senator."
The RNC definitely has no problem reusing their mouthpieces while they're still warm.
Posted by: idlemind | January 31, 2008 at 05:41 PM
From George Washington's farewell address:
"In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views."
Jake Tapper reports:
"Did Washington just say that the United States should break up into smaller parts? In a moment of candor in his farewell address, Washington said that North and South, East and West were doomed to fight because of a 'real difference of local interests and views. Shame on Washington for inciting civil war."
Posted by: SDM | January 31, 2008 at 05:42 PM
Is there any way of putting pressure on him, or his editors, to make him correct this? I mean, possible bias is one thing, but outright illiteracy is quite another...
Posted by: Anarch | January 31, 2008 at 06:02 PM
The Clinton campaign did not provide for me, as requested, an explanation of what he meant.
Wahhhh! Those mean old Clintons won't help me do my job!
Posted by: liberal japonicus | January 31, 2008 at 06:07 PM
What about the timeless Tapper classic (as opposed to the "sell-by" classic): I have come to praise Caesar, not to bury him?
Posted by: Tom Maguire | January 31, 2008 at 06:13 PM
What's sad is that there isn't a correction on the thread, just an update detailing a response from the RNC construing the quite Tapper-style.
Posted by: Ara | January 31, 2008 at 06:28 PM
I have come to seize your berry, not to appraise it.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 31, 2008 at 06:36 PM
Wow. His second statement is ... Oh dear God ... incredible!
First he pretends to be the humble guy interpreting the incredibly convoluted and complicated statement. Then says snarky things about the Clintons interpreting the word 'is'.
You know, it reminds me of the courtroom scene in Idiocracy.
Posted by: Ara | January 31, 2008 at 06:41 PM
Well done, SDM.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | January 31, 2008 at 06:43 PM
Makes you realize how hard Broder has to work at pulling this crap. The difference between a gifted amateur and a true professional...
Posted by: liberal japonicus | January 31, 2008 at 06:57 PM
I think what is much more worrisome than Tapper's lack of reading skills, is the mindset of all the commenters who lapped up his totally distorted version of the speech without a second thought, even though the full quote was provided. What does that say about political discourse in the US and how the decision who to vote for is made in the majority of cases? What do they really think? "Damn hippies want to take away my money, my car and tell me what to do"?
Sometimes all the admirably fine-grained analysis done at blogs like ObWi seems like a parallel universe to me, totally disconnected from what goes on in the average voter's head. Sometimes I think the GOP's success is due to playing these base instincts like a fiddle, while the Democrats are wasting their time trying to be halfway truthful. Sometimes I think it's all a bloody waste of time.
Posted by: novakant | January 31, 2008 at 07:24 PM
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, pray for them that persecute you, that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven, for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the tax-gatherers the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the Gentiles so? And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what gain have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Most High: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye merciful, as your Father also is merciful."
Jesus Christ today commanded Christians to hate their enemies. He went on to say that Christians should love their enemies. So there was something of a contradiction there. Or perhaps he mis-spoke. Or perhaps this characterization was a description of what would happen if there isn’t a worldwide enemy-loving effort…I’m not quite certain.
Posted by: hilzoy | January 31, 2008 at 08:40 PM
So what you're saying, Hilzoy, is that Jesus would raise our taxes, repeal the bankruptcy bill, hand out free money, and invite bin Laden to the White House for a chat?
Posted by: idlemind | January 31, 2008 at 08:48 PM
I have some sympathy for Mr. Tapper.
Here again is the "smart" solution from Clinton:
"The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world’s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work."
What the hell is Clinton saying?
Posted by: mockmook | January 31, 2008 at 09:05 PM
I’d like to play the Tapper game with the words of our friend and ally, the Iraqi Shiite leader Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husayni Sistani:
‘The following ten things are essentially najis [unclean]:
1. Urine;
2. Faeces;
3. Semen;
4. Dead body;
5. Blood;
6. Dog;
7. Pig;
8. Kafir [unbeliever];
9. Alcoholic liquors;
10. The sweat of an animal who persistently eats najasat [ie, unclean things].’
Sastani adds, ‘the entire body of a Kafir [unbeliever], including his hair and nails, and all liquid substances of his body, are najis [unclean].’
And Tapper:
Dogs are as dirty as Kafirs. Pigs are as dirty as Kafirs. Faeces are as dirty as Kafirs; and yet, in spite of all of this, it is possible that certain parts of pigs and dogs may be clean, and that some part of faeces may be clean.
Posted by: Bill | January 31, 2008 at 09:41 PM
You should check
Posted by: Mark D | January 31, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Lincoln, of course, advocated the dissolution of the union AND the expansion of slavery in his House Divided speech. Or he didn't - he was unclear on the point.
We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.
Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.
In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.
Posted by: eRobin | January 31, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Well get ready. This is thhe treatment Hillary and Bill will get every time she opens her mouth righht up to thhe day McCain is inaugerated.
Sigh.
Posted by: wonkie | January 31, 2008 at 11:58 PM
Idlemind mentions above the National Journal reporting done by Tapper (which I haven't looked in to yet). Another thing I haven't seen mentioned here is Mark Kleiman's take on another piece of Tapper's writing, from the day prior to the Clinton article. Something about Obama's stance on Rumsfeld in 2001.
-
Dang Hilzoy, I didn't know that Obama was for turning back the clock... just one more reason to support him, IMHO, I can go back and revoke my bet for Giuliani on the Presidential futures markets. Yes I can!
Posted by: Trips | January 31, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Sorry, wrong link directly above:
here
Posted by: Trips | February 01, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Um .. what you should check is Tapper's newest post. (Guess the URL didn't make it though the ObWi spam filter. )
Guy's trying to explain where the comments went (not his fault!), and saying the whole point of his first post was to discuss the costs of fighting global warming.
Seriously.
Not sure if he really does believe it, or if he's just sealing up his 2008 Hacktacular Award.
Posted by: Mark D | February 01, 2008 at 12:04 AM
MarkD: I would have thought he had already locked in that award with his first post. His second was just icing on the cake. No further work necessary.
Posted by: hilzoy | February 01, 2008 at 12:13 AM
Whoever polices the comments on Tapper's blog has a streak of Redstate in them. I've had two deleted, which of course contained no personal attacks or cursing. Not sure why a couple of other comments that dare to mention that Tapper was wrong (or even use the word "liar") are still visible, though. Maybe the censor is just incompetent.
Posted by: KCinDC | February 01, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Amid the criticism, a quick note of congratulations to the Clintons. I knew the speeches were lucrative (tens of millions), and was happy for the couple when the UAE $20 million payout was leaked. But $130 million for brokering a uranium deal between a dictator in Kazakhstan and some start-up Canadian investor. Wow. Real go-getters, those Clintons.
$400,000 per year salary. Shadows on the wall of the cave.
I wonder if Obama has figured it out yet.
Posted by: Bill | February 01, 2008 at 12:57 AM
Tapper ought to be failing his second grade Language Arts class for the thirty-fourth consecutive year, but thanks to the soft bigotry of low expectations, he ended up as ABC's Senior National Correspondent instead. If he HAD GOTTEN out of school without the ability to do basic math and had ended up as a NASA engineer, his ignorance would harm people in direct and obvious ways.
Maybe he's not the only one: "gotten" is one of my pet peeves. Is it really difficult to type: "If he had graduated school without...?" It's shorter and is actually correct!
Posted by: John S | February 01, 2008 at 02:21 AM
“And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada — the rich counties...
Innocent typo or another case of dyslexia?
Apart from the all-too-common arrogance to say "America" for USA while referring in the same sentence to Canada (and not all of Europe is rich btw).
Posted by: Hartmut | February 01, 2008 at 06:17 AM
Oh, sorry. The first sentence should have been blockquoted. I accidentally used 'quote, /quote' instead.
Posted by: Hartmut | February 01, 2008 at 06:20 AM
Hey, cut the guy a break. He's a busy man! I'm sure he has neither the time nor the legal training to figure out what Clinton was saying.
Posted by: Johnny Pez | February 01, 2008 at 06:34 AM
John S: "Is it really difficult to type: "If he had graduated school without...?" It's shorter and is actually correct!"
Some might argue that "had been graduated without" is actually the correct form, because graduation is not something you do, it's something that's done to you.
Not to be pedantic or anything.
Posted by: farmgirl | February 01, 2008 at 08:51 AM
I'm still wondering what superstition he has about "gotten", but maybe he's British and unfamiliar with American usage.
Posted by: KCinDC | February 01, 2008 at 09:50 AM
For that matter, "gotten out of school" does not necessarily imply graduating; a dropout has certainly gotten out of school, after all.
Posted by: Jim Parish | February 01, 2008 at 10:44 AM
KCinDC: I'm still wondering what superstition he has about "gotten", but maybe he's British and unfamiliar with American usage.
I would rather type a letter on a French keyboard than use "gotten" without scare quotes, because as a Brit I know it brings eight years of awfully bad luck.
But he can't be British, because in Britain nobody graduates from school. You leave school: you graduate from university or college.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | February 01, 2008 at 10:52 AM
In a stunning attack, prominent ObWi commentator Jesurgislac today accused the British education system of being useless. "In Britain nobody graduates from school," Jesurgislac wrote.
Posted by: Jake Tapper | February 01, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Well, then his third post secures his spot in the Hall of Fame.
:-)
And like KCinDC, I posted a totally, 100%, profane-free, legitimate comment. It was deleted a DOZEN times.
Posted by: Mark D | February 01, 2008 at 11:14 AM
"Jake Tapper" FTW
Posted by: Anarch | February 01, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Tapperized Jake Tapper:
(deleted from the comments)
Wow, I hardly know how to take this.
This morning, trying to understand what former President Bill Clinton was driving at when he made a statement about effort to combat global warming, I <> did not <> examine closely or subject to detailed analysis, especially by breaking up into components" or "To make sense of; [or even ]comprehend."
But I suspect <> I should defer to their expertise.
Apologies for <> confusing public comment from a former president about a major world issue and trying to <> slow down our economy."
Posted by: Jazgar | February 01, 2008 at 05:06 PM