Matt Taibbi is a political blogger and Rolling Stone reporter who is perhaps best (or worst) known for his frequently offensive style. Controversies aside, however, Taibbi deserves credit for his no-nonsense approach to deconstructing politics, which might explain why he’s a regular contributor to the HBO series “Real Time with Bill Maher.” The news-entertainment clip seen here comes from the February 22, 2008 “Real Time,” which aired a week and a half before the Ohio Democratic Primary on March 4. The hour-long episode could be seen live on HBO – and Taibbi’s three-minute segment, which was featured toward the end of the show, immediately appeared on YouTube.
In his documentary-style “reportage,” Taibbi follows the Clinton campaign to Youngstown, Ohio, where he interviews residents about their feelings toward NAFTA and Hillary. The opening footage reveals an industrial-looking landscape, including a General Motors plant, and a Local UAW sign. Taibbi’s voiceover meanwhile explains that Youngstown is “economically devastated,” with the “lowest median income of any city in the United States with a population above 65,000.”
“Free trade is an important issue for Ohio,” Taibbi explains to a few Youngstown men, who in turn opine that NAFTA has cut local jobs. Next, Taibbi showcases some man-on-the-street political ineptitude, including a young woman volunteering for both the Clinton and Obama campaigns, and a group of ladies unable to explain differences between Clinton and McCain. Perhaps the segment highlight comes when Taibbi asks a woman to name some differences between Clinton and Obama, and she rambles off hearsay about Hillary being “furious” over Bill’s support for NAFTA. When Taibbi informs the woman that Hillary “just expanded NAFTA to Peru,” the woman rambles into a non sequitur about this being a global economy, and how we can’t isolate ourselves. A wild, roaring campaign rally follows – with signs reading “Hillary Rocks!” and “Go Buckeyes! Vote for Hillary!” – during which Clinton declares she’s going to “fix” NAFTA with a “four-point plan.”Taibbi’s final address to the camera observes how Clinton “campaigns against the same agreement she’s voted for consistently ever since she’s been Senator – and the crowd ate it up.” And he concludes: “It really doesn’t matter what your record is, all that really matters is what you say in your stump speech.”
Taibbi’s claim that Youngstown is “economically devastated” is fair; his statistic (“lowest median income”) concurs with the Census Bureau’s 2006 American Community Survey. One point to consider, however, is that Youngstown earned similar superlatives in the 1980s (e.g. the nation’s highest unemployment area in 1982, according to the Labor Department), so it might be a leap to suggest NAFTA as main cause of the city’s current woes. It could, however, be regarded as a symbol. In a recent “Economist’s View” posting, Robert Reich observed that ““NAFTA has become a symbol for the mounting insecurities felt by blue-collar Americans,” which is perhaps why it is fair game for such scrutiny. Nonetheless, it’s understandable why Taibbi saw fit to use a city whose main industries include “transportation equipment” and “metal and metal products” as backdrop for Clinton’s NAFTA equivocations.
Whether Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA’s initial passage, when she was first lady, remains open for debate (although Clinton told TIME magazine last year that she agreed with NAFTA “in principle,” and other evidence has since mounted to suggest her early support for the agreement). Regardless, Taibbi alludes, appropriately, to the more relevant and measurable evidence of Clinton’s voting record in the Senate – indicating she has “consistently” supported NAFTA principles. This is mostly true. During her eight years as New York Senator, Clinton voted “Yes” to free trade with Chile (2003), Singapore (2003) and Oman (2006) – among others. She did, however, vote “No” on CAFTA (2005), citing concern for its lack of environmental or labor standards.
Taibbi’s claim that Clinton “just expanded NAFTA to Peru,” however, is not entirely fair. Although reputable media sources have likewise indicated her support for H.R. 3688, which came up for a Senate vote on December 4, 2007, official government roll call lists the Senator as “Not voting” on the bill. Therefore Taibbi’s phrasing (at least) is inaccurate. Further, in 2002 Clinton voted “No” against H.R. 3009, an extension of the Andean Trade Preference Act for Columbia, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru.
Clinton’s “four-point plan” remains elusive. To be sure, Taibbi’s segment didn’t include excerpts of any explanation for the plan Clinton might have offered in her stump speech. Further, it’s somewhat difficult to locate – let alone conceptualize – the plan outlined on Clinton’s official website. (Click on “Issues,” then “Strengthening the Middle Class,” then, at the very bottom of a right-hand sidebar, click on the link that says “Hillary Clinton’s Trade Agenda.”… and you’ll learn that the plan mostly calls for ‘strengthening’ NAFTA’s labor and environmental provisions…). Overall, it seems fair to characterize Clinton as more of a friend than a foe to free trade.
Taibbi’s implications in the segment are twofold: First, Clinton obfuscates her NAFTA record for the Ohioans; and second, they buy into it. Based on the above discussion, Taibbi’s characterization of Clinton’s Youngstown visit seems fair, and based on prevailing truth.
The core of any ethical discussion sparked by this news-entertainment segment is Taibbi’s use and portrayal of Youngstownians. He pokes fun at their dancing; he exposes their ignorance by showing us (what we can only hope to be) their worst instances of oblivion; and he juxtaposes the crowd’s wild support for Clinton (as she disses NAFTA) with hints of Youngstown’s poverty, as if to suggest they would be hurting themselves by voting for Hillary, given her track record on free trade. Taibbi’s documentary could be read as cautionary tale against getting swept up by candidates’ august promises on the stumps. But in making his case, the Youngtownians look foolish.Is this ethical?
Taking a “Potter Box” approach to Youngstown’s portrayal, we see that the principle of human care clashes with the principle of truthfulness (and entertainment, as this is an HBO series). Applying Mill’s principle of utility, or “the greatest happiness for the greatest number,” I believe truthfulness trumps compassion here. If we read Taibbi’s segment as a call for greater skepticism in a democracy, then it serves a greater number of Americans than Ohioans it mildly exploits. Democracy relies on competitive elections, which rely on citizens voting for their own interests, which both rely on clear knowledge of candidates’ positions. All is lost when: 1. candidates equivocate, and 2. voters and likewise the media fail to apply skepticism – both of which happened in Youngstown. Therefore Taibbi’s use of the rally’s ironies, which reveal the potential shortcomings of a democracy, can be justified. Of course Clinton, like her supporters, is portrayed unflatteringly, too – but this need not prompt ethical discussion, as 1. she is a public figure with apublic voting record, delivering public stump speeches, and 2. Taibbi doesn’t alter her words. Finally, as per Sissela Bok’s discussion of political deception, Clinton’s hedging would not be justified, as she is only seeking to gain Ohio’s votes.
Overall, Taibbi’s three-minute “Real Time” segment is ethical and commendable. Although mildly exploitative (as are many man-on-the-street features), its commitment to the truth, and by extension a more competent democracy, outweighs any potential harm to Youngstownians, who should ultimately be empowered by learning to exercise skepticism. At the same time, the clip is entertaining, and apt to grab viewers’ attention.
Sources:
The U.S. Census Bureau’s “Income, Earnings and Poverty Data from the 2006 American Community Survey:
