Rotten Apples
by digby
Another day, another corrupt elite. It's as predictable as the sun rising in the east. We have politicians and greedy CEOs and wall street gamblers revealed all the time as crooks and liars. The punditocrisy is no exception. I'm sure everyone remembers the scandal over the pentagon military analysts who were spreading propaganda to promote the war while working for military contractors who stood to make a ton of money on it, right? (You could be forgiven for not knowing about it --- the TV news media have blacked out their own scandal, thus creating another one.)
So, with all that, I suppose it was only a matter of time before corruption in academia, specifically that which crosses over into the punditocrisy, would be revealed as well. And this one's a doozy.
Greg Sargent:
There’s a fascinating revelation in Ben Smith’s article today about political prognosticator Larry Sabato that really tells you a lot about how the D.C. pundit-industrial complex works and how D.C. insiders reinforce their mutual influence, unwittingly at times.
The article reports that Sabato, one of D.C.’s best known inside-game pundit-types, received earmarks on a regular basis for an educational program at his University of Virginia Center for Politics. The earmark cash was delivered by former Congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia’s 5th District, a longtime friend of Sabato. Goode was ousted last year in a surprise upset by young long-shot Thomas Perriello.
Turns out, though, that during the race, Sabato had regularly been predicting a comfortable victory for Goode until the end — and though Smith doesn’t say this outright, there are no signs he disclosed the earmark arrangement that was benefiting his institution while calling the shots on the race.
Predictions of victory from the likes of Sabato are no small thing. They influence insider chatter, which has a real impact on endorsements and fundraising and can swing a contest’s outcome.
Sargent says that Sabato wasn't out on a limb predicting Goode's win, but that he should have disclosed his ties. I actually think that isn't good enough. I don't believe he should have commented on that race at all since he was good friends with one of the candidates and was receiving huge sums of money as a result of that friendship. Neither should he have ever discussed the topic of earmarks on television or written a word about them without pointing out that he was a huge beneficiary of the practice. Frankly, close friendships between analysts and the subjects they analyze is always going to be a problem and when you add money into the mix it turns into outright corruption.
Elitist cronyism is at the heart of all these corrupt practices. And the media is right in the middle of it. All the back scratching and payoffs that dismayed the rest of us as the dishonesty and ineptitude of the ruling class became apparent in situations like Iraq and Katrina were just business as usual to the ruling class. Similarly, the greed and self-destructive malfeasance of our economic overlords simply didn't register among elites who all know each other and earnestly believe they are all the best and the brightest (when they are actually "the best and the brightest" which Halberstam meant as an ironic term.) The rot is systemic.
.