DISORDER(S): Is "something wrong" with our high-end discourse?

TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2024

With respect to "price controls," snark and speed conquer again: Is "something wrong" with Donald J. Trump? Is it possible that something is severely wrong—that something is severely wrong in the clinical sense?

The possibility is obvious—but by the rules of the game, it can't, and it won't, be discussed.

Given the primitive way our national discourse functions, that unspoken prohibition may be all for the best. That said, it was the primitive nature of that discourse which led to the construction of this site, way back in the 1990s, when the leading lights of our upper-class press corps couldn't resolve the simplest questions about the most basic policy issues.

Many went to the finest schools. We often wonder why they bothered, what they did when they were there. 

Setting such insults to the side, how primitive can our discourse be? For one example, let's start with this week's edition of The Conversation, a weekly feature at the New York Times.

The Conversation is a weekly discussion between Bret Stephens and Gail Collins. At one point in this morning's colloquy, the following exchange occurs, concerning an alleged proposal by Candidate Harris:

Kamala Harris Takes Her First Big Risk

[...]

Bret: The best thing that can be said about her promise to go after price “gouging” is that she knows it has no hope of passing and that she understands that every serious economist on the planet will warn her that the consequences of price controls would be shortages, hoarding and, soon enough, black markets. In fact, my only hope for Harris is that her agenda is for campaign purposes only and that she’ll become a normal Democrat once in office.

Gail: Well, you have hope.

Bret: On the other hand, as Catherine Rampell of The Washington Post pointed out last week, if your opponent is going to call you a “communist,” it might be wiser not to propose legislation worthy of Venezuela. Or is there some political logic at work here that I’m missing?

Gail: Sorry, I can’t get all worked up about a presidential candidate who wants to redistribute some of the wealth from the overly wealthy class. Not sure that I care if price controls are part of it.

Has Candidate Harris proposed "price controls?" We present today's exchange exactly as it exists. 

In the exchange, Stephens refers to a snarky column by Catherine Rampell—a snarky column in which Rampell lambasted Harris for doing precisely that. We're here today to tell you this about that snarky column:

Rampell walked it back, essentially renounced it, last Friday afternoon! As you can see, neither Stephens nor Collins seem to have heard about that.

By the norms of the press corps—by the norms of the human race—Stephens is thoroughly bright. That said, this is the snarky dual headline he's basically quoting today—the snarky headline  and column Rampell has long since renounced, walked back:

When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls?
It’s hard to exaggerate how bad Kamala Harris’s price-gouging proposal is.

“Price gouging” is the focus of Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic agenda, her presidential campaign says. She’ll crack down on “excessive prices” and “excessive corporate profits,” particularly for groceries.

So what level counts as “excessive,” you might ask? TBD, but Harris will ban it.

That’s the thing about price gouging: As has been said of hardcore pornography, you know it when you see it.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha—but also, so wonderfully cool! The snark was running wild last Thursday when Rampell's column about "price controls" appeared.

By the next day—as of Friday afternoon—Rampell had taken it back. Four days later, Stephens is quoting the initial snarky assessment without citing the later walk-back.

Are we Americans, we neighbors and friends, still saddled with a primitive discourse? In this morning's Conversation, Stephens ignores Rampell's disavowal—and Collins doesn't notice.

At this point, we'll take a wild guess:

Most likely, neither journalist even knows about last Friday's disavowal! Now for a quick bit of background:

For news of Rampell's disavowal, we can all be grateful to Kipp Jones, who lists himself as a "night reporter" at the clickbait-oriented but occasionally helpful Mediaite site.

Last Friday afternoon, Jones had already authored this report about Rampell's original snarky assessment—an assessment offered in her column for the Post, then on CNN. 

But then, Dear God, he actually noticed what came next—and he actually chose to speak up! Later on Friday, Jones offered this follow-up report about Rampell's subsequent disavowal. All praise to Mediaite's Kipp Jones:

‘I Support It’: WaPo Columnist Who Hammered Harris Over Call For ‘Price Controls’ Does Full 180 After Hearing Speech

Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell said Friday afternoon she supported Vice President Kamala Harris’s take on lowering prices after she made headlines earlier in the day for criticizing the presumptive Democratic party nominee.

Prior to Harris’s economic policy rollout speech Friday afternoon, it was widely reported Harris would call for the federal government to intervene regarding the cost of groceries – including instituting “price controls” if she is elected.

In an early morning piece for the Post, Rampell criticized Harris in an opinion piece that was headlined, “When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls?” 

[...] 

Harris did not outright call for the Federal Trade Commission to intervene during her speech in North Carolina, a fact that was highlighted on social media by Bloomberg columnist Matthew Yglesias.

Rampell shared Yglesias’s post on X (formerly Twitter) and commented that after hearing Harris speak, she supported her message.

Oof! Operating with lightning speed, Rampell had mocked Harris at the Washington Post, then on CNN. She'd mocked the accidental candidate for proposing "price controls."

By now, she had listened to Harris's actual speech, and she now said that she supported what Harris was proposing! Here's the problem:

Now, when she performed her 180, she did so in a tweet! The snark had made its way around the world. The tweet rolled over and died.

Is something wrong with our high-end American discourse? In this case, it was the oldest story in the book:

The snark got all the way around the world before the subsequent tweet appeared! And as of this morning, there is no sign that Stephens or Collins has ever heard of the tweet. 

Just for the sake of the record, here's what Rampell said in her tweet, with the Yglesias tweet included:

Last Friday, Rampell's tweet
Yes there was still some silliness in her speech, but her comments on prices were more toned down than campaign factsheet sent to reporters (punishing companies that raise prices above their costs etc). A generic call to increase antitrust enforcement is fine and I support it.

All hail the greatness of Rampell! With condescension worthy of Austen's Reverend Collins, she now said that she supports what Harris has proposed! She's willing to do so despite the "silliness" which could still be found in the speech!

What has Harris actually proposed in the realm of "price controls?" For ourselves, we can't exactly tell you that, nor are we going to try. We can tell you this:

Rampell's original snarky column was based on this news report in the Washington Post. In turn, the news report was based on some sort of press release from the Harris campaign. (In her tweet, Rampell calls it a "campaign factsheet.")

As quoted in that news report, the press release did refer to "price gouging," but "price controls" weren't mentioned. Rampell and an array of others quickly took things from there, with Rampell's high level of snark attracting a lot of attention.

That said, all praise to Mediaite's Kipp Jones! He noticed Rampell's walk-back tweet, then reported its existence. For the most part, though, the process ended right there.

As of today, Stephens and Collins have blustered ahead as if that walk-back never occurred. Nor is Rampell the only top scribe who has now rejected the initial "price controls" assessment. 

As Jones noted, Rampell's walk-back was based on an assessment by Bloomberg's Matt Yglesias. Yesterday, we showed you the way the Wall Street Journal's John Bussey reacted to that initial assessment, even as he spoke on the Fox News Channel.

Bussey was reacting to Donald J. Trump's sprawling cascade of insults aimed at "Comrade Kamala." As we showed you yesterday, here's what the Journal man said:

BUSSEY (8/17/24): I don't know where the former president is getting this from. She's not talking about price controls. 

That's what Bussey said last Saturday. As we've noted, Kevin Drum offered the same assessment on Sunday, right here in this post.

"She's not talking about price controls!" Bussey rejected that assessment on Saturday. As for Rampell, she had renounced the assessment the day before. 

Four days after Rampell's tweet, Stephens and Collins don't seem to have heard. This is your high-end press corps on "possibly not completely perspicacious."

In large measure, it was Maureen Dowd who injected the culture of snark into the veins of our upper-end press corps. Also, as the news cycle has sped up, everyone wants to get there first.

Rampell rushed out her initial assessment, and it was loaded with snark. CNN rushed to enjoy the snark. A few hours later, under cover of X, Rampell walked her assessment back.

This is your press corps on sleeping sickness. We offer one final point:

Last week, we offered the world's most obvious thought. A sudden, "accidental" candidate like Harris shouldn't start doing press events until she's had sufficient time to get her policy palette in order.

Such a candidate shouldn't want to rush out and make some sort of minor mistake—some sort of minor mistake which our "highly educated" major journalists would inevitably jump on, especially if it seemed to confirm one of their pre-existing, thoroughly memorized narratives.

A version of this folderol seems to have taken place in the case of the policy which Rampell now supports. 

We know of no link to the press release which triggered the stampede and the snark. We'll guess that, under the stress of a sudden campaign, it may have been released a bit prematurely—that its language hadn't been scrubbed to the point where people like Rampell (and many others) could rush in with instant snark.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep. Our press corps has routinely functioned this way at least since the early Clinton/Gore years.

They're full of snark and self-assurance. When they issue their (very rare) walk-backs, they do so under cover of darkness.

Their colleagues never hear about it. Or their colleagues may simply want to continue exploiting the pleasing frisson of the snark.

Is "something wrong" with this aggregation? We started this site in 1998 because we already thought the answer was yes.

Today, Rampell supports the Harris position despite its unfortunate silliness. There's no sign that Stephens and Collins have heard.

Presumably tomorrow: Continuing right along, is "something wrong" with the people who gather each day on The Five?

(Tomorrow, we may be blacked out, or delayed, due to a "planned [power] outage!")