Today at Cato, John Samples hosted a discussion of my e-book on the Three-Axes model. One of the interesting questions came from Matt Yglesias, who asked about the role of columnists who are less tribal, or even anti-tribal, in their orientation. My thinking is that their views receive less amplification (as measured, say, by blog citations) than the tribalists. However, as Matt points out, the tribal drummers may have less influence on policy setting, where technocrats and centrists hold more sway. This leads me to posit the following matrix, which captures my views of the relative significance of different types of players in the mediasphere, partisan election results, and policy setting.
| Actors | Mediasphere | Partisan Elections | Policy Setting |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tribal Drummers | high | medium* | low |
| Technocrats | low | low | medium |
| Rent-seekers | medium | low | high |
The Tribal Drummers are folks who can clearly be identified using the three-axis model as progressives, conservatives, or libertarians. I call them tribal drummers because they whip up enthusiasm among those who agree. If you want to have a lot of significance in the mediasphere, it is best to be a tribal drummer. Also, you may have some influence on partisan elections. By partisan elections, I mean the contests between Democrats and Republicans. It is probably easier to argue that the tribal drummers have influence on primaries than on partisan elections.
*Libertarian tribal drummers have a lower influence on partisan elections than progressive or conservative tribal drummers, because libertarians do not have a party.
Technocrats are pundits and policy wonks who tend to be centrist in orientation. I claim that they are not amplified much in the mediasphere. They do get involved in the policy game. I think of Ezra Klein as someone who wants to be both a technocrat and a tribal drummer, and in my opinion he would do better to close off the latter option.
Finally, rent-seekers are folks who know what they want from policy and focus on getting it. Thus, their influence on policy is high. Because they buy influence on both sides, their significance in partisan elections is low. The one exception that comes to mind would be teachers’ unions, who are both rent-seeking and strongly partisan. I also claim that rent-seekers have a lot of influence in the mediasphere, because I think that they are very good at shaping the battle space. What I have in mind is the housing lobby, which is amazing at shaping how housing issues are presented in the media.
This matrix might still leave out the sorts of columnists that Matt Yglesias mentioned, e.g., Thomas Friedman. Friedman is not a technocrat, tribal drummer, or policy wonk. In fact, the category I would put him in is suck-up (and, no, I am not being charitable). I think there is a niche for journalists who write to make important people feel even more important. These journalists go to places like Davos and admire the leaders with whom they rub elbows. The CEOs and politicians write warm blurbs for their books, and so they sell well, even while the tribal drummers and others in the mediasphere dismiss them as insipid.
Your description of many columnists — particularly Thomas Friedman — reminds me of a Benjamin Constant quote from p.4 of the Liberty Fund edition of Principles of Politics Applicable to All Governments:
“The ambition of the writers of the day is at all times to seem more convinced than anyone else of the reigning opinion. They watch which way the crowd is rushing. They dash as fast as they can to overtake it. They think thereby to acquire glory for providing an inspiration they actually got from others.”
Maybe they don’t move the crowds so much as the crowds move them. This would certainly make it easier to get published and gain a higher profile.
Cue the “Little Drummer Boy” jokes.
I think the interesting question is how they all work together. For instance, in what circumstances will the rent-seekers triumph over the technocrats in affecting policy? Virtually every time? Or can the technocrats rally enough support from their drummer pals to defeat them, and if so, in what circumstances? We need to apply some game theory to predict our punditry’s effectiveness.
You provide the helpful matrix, which shows the relative significance of different types of players in the mediasphere, partisan election results, and policy setting.
I respond technocrats, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, President of the Eurogroup meeting of euro-zone finance ministers, Olli Rehn, Vice President of the European Commission responsible for economic and monetary affairs, Michel Barnier, EU Commissioner responsible for internal market and services, Klaus Regling, Managing Director of the European Stability Mechanism, Werner Hoyer, President of the European Investment Bank, recently op-edited in the WSJ claiming credit for the Eurozone’s economic recovery in article Europe’s Crisis Response Is Showing Results … http://tinyurl.com/lwkejz8 …
Jesus Christ, operating in the Economy of God, as revealed by the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 1:10, that is operating in the administration of all things economic and political, is pivoting the world into the economic and political paradigm of authoritarianism.
Liberalism’s technocrats will become Authoritarianism’s nannycrats, on the extinguishment of Nation Investment, EFA, coming on the failure of credit and carry trade investment, which will destabilize liberalism’s nation state sovereignty, and its banker seigniorage.
The new economic and political paradigm of authoritarianism, will rise through sovereign insolvency and banking insolvency, as foretold in Revelation 13:3-4, that being a Minsky Moment, where European leaders will renounce national sovereignty, pool regional sovereignty, and announce regional framework agreements that appoint regional nannycrats sovereign, who will oversee the seigniorage of public private partnership, as they issue mandates for regional security, stability, and sustainability.
Liberalism is characterized by trust in rent seekers, that is bankers, stock brokers, and asset managers, to the point of being insestious, through US Fed and other world central bank monetary policies such as POMO.
But authoritarianism is characterized by confidence in the word, will and way of the regional nannycrats; so much so that the Apostle Paul wrote in Revelation 13:3-4, that All the world marveled and followed the beast; so they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the Beast.