Unemployment: Propaganda and Truth

We have gone beyond partisanship; the party in power in our country has engaged in a systematic campaign to manipulate the electorate by destroying the credibility of governing institutions.

This campaign has been disturbingly successful.

Citizens interested in preserving democracy, legitimate political debate and rule of law must combat propaganda – by identifying it, revealing the selfish and destructive motives behind it, and responding with truth.

Last week I wrote about the assault on the free press. The civil service – now presented to supporters of the current occupant of the White House as part of a “Deep State” — has been another object of attack. One target has been the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the otherwise apolitical process of calculating the unemployment rate.

With the unemployment rate declining steadily during the Obama presidency and in the aftermath of the 2008-9 financial crisis, Republicans decided that reality was stubbornly inconvenient. The unemployment rate was not moving in the desired direction (after all, political ends come before the welfare of the country). The numbers themselves, therefore, would have to be declared fictitious, and those involved in compiling the data would have to be villainized.

With a willing hyperpartisan following committed to condemning the Obama administration no matter the facts, Republican operatives embarked on a coordinated assault on the unemployment data and the civil servants involved in processing the data.

The right-wing Heritage Foundation was at the center of the process. In 2006, Heritage published a “Jobs and Labor” report “Hard at Work,” explaining why the decline in the unemployment rate under George Bush was real, despite a fall in the labor force participation rate. The author of that report argued that “Changing demographics explain part of the lower participation rates. Beyond that, much of the decline in labor force participa­tion (LFP) rates-the propor­tion of the population either in or actively looking for work- can be attributed to the rising numbers of younger Americans opting to invest in their future by continuing their education rather than entering the work­force.”

Five years later, when no longer suited to the political moment, Heritage turned the argument on its head, embarking on a steady stream of efforts to delegitimate the measured unemployment rate. In September 2012, Heritage reported that “The workers now outside the labor force are primarily either studying in school or collecting disability benefits. Approximately 2.1 million more Americans report being outside the labor force and enrolled in school. The weak economy has both made it more difficult for students to find part-time jobs and reduced the opportunity cost of going to school.”

While leaving the labor force to pursue further education represented a choice “to invest in their future” under George W. Bush, under Obama people left the labor force for education because of declining opportunity costs of doing so.

In fall 2012; the right-wing Washington Times brought the popular media into the propaganda effort, publishing an article claiming of the pre-election reduction in the unemployment rate: “At best the new unemployment number is a fluke; at worst it is the product of partisan hacks.”

The New York Post broadened the claim with a fall 2013 article simply asserting “Census ‘faked’ 2012 election jobs report.” The article pointed to a single Census Bureau data canvasser who claimed to have made up his jobs data. Never mind that (a) the person in question did not work for the Census Bureau during the period claimed; and (b) economists familiar with the calculations explained that even if one person’s data WAS entirely made up, there would be zero impact on the data accumulated by thousands of canvassers. As with the news, the concept of “fake” unemployment numbers had entered the discourse.

MarketwatchMic and Forbes (“Did the BLS Give Obama a Major Election 2012 Gift?”) amplified the campaign, picking up on the Post’s invitation to elaborate a case for partisan fixing of the data.

Declaring the officially calculated unemployment rate “fake” or manipulated – a claim that has been proven false — is itself a manipulation, an act of propaganda.

The political advantages of propaganda are that it provides a shortcut to desired political conclusions and that it is immune to evidence. But anyone truly committed to democratic debate shuns such shortcuts and embraces evidence.

The recent decline in the measured rate of unemployment under the current administration is real. But there is important context to this decline, and discussion of that context constitutes legitimate political debate rather than the shameful, destructive propaganda that has become the stock-in-trade of the present administration.

To begin with, the recent fall in the unemployment rate clearly is a continuation of a trend well established during the Obama administration. The unemployment rate is now at 3.9%; during the Obama years, the rate declined from a peak of 10.0% in December 2009 — during the financial crisis the Obama administration inherited — to 4.7% at the end of his second term:

Obama unemployment rate.png

True, there have been 17 straight months of job gains. But this follows 75 consecutive months of job gains under Obama.

Furthermore, the rate of job gains has not increased. During the stretch of 75 months of job gains of the Obama recovery, the U.S. economy gained 199,000 jobs per month; during the second Obama administration, the average monthly gain was 217,000.

Since January 2017, the rate has been 189,000 per month.

Finally, the decline in the unemployment rate does not mean that working people are better off. In fact, during the past year, while wages rose by 2.7%, inflation was 2.9%. The average worker, in other words, is losing ground in real terms.

In short, while propaganda renders recent job market performance miraculous and unprecedented, facts suggest otherwise. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has not been lying; the current administration cannot tell the truth.

 

Progressives, the Right and the Dangerous Purge of “the Deep State”

While out walking my dog yesterday I had a revealing political exchange with a neighbor.

The conversation began with a polite discussion of the neighborhood; the neighbor generously volunteers to keep up maintenance in the community to save the homeowner’s association money on repairs. As we discussed various concerns about the neighborhood people had brought to his attention, his reference to “the liberals” came up; I self-identified as such. That’s when things got interesting.

In response to my confession, the first thing my neighbor asked was how much I knew about Stalin and the number of deaths for which he bore responsibility. Taken aback, I probed the source of the question. Knowledge about Stalin was his litmus test for liberals – and evidence of their denial of atrocities on the political left.

University students, apparently, are kept from knowledge of the horrors of Stalinism by professors who sweep this history under the rug as a means of sanitizing the political left.  I responded that this was not only entirely untrue, but that his association of progressives with Stalinism was severely misguided.

I chose not to take the discussion in this direction, but the obvious irony is that the political right is at this moment engaged in a campaign to “purge” the “deep state” in our federal government – a project with clear Stalinist overtones.

What is this project about?  What are its objectives and its consequences?

The New Yorker recently published an insightful account of the shameful “deep state” campaign.

The project amounts to a decision to go after civil servants who were important to developing Obama-era policies that the new administration finds objectionable. The New Yorker focuses on a loyal, talented young woman who was targeted due to her value in negotiating the nuclear deal with Iran and extracting the best possible terms for the U.S.

Of course, the record of the federal civil service is one of faithfully executing policies of successive administrations regardless of their politics. There can be obstruction and foot-dragging, but civil servants also are bound by a code of ethics that illuminates by contrast the disgraceful behavior of the current cabinet oligarchy.

The New Yorker points out how the Nixon administration systematically sought to marginalize civil servants it saw as a threat to that lawless administration’s political control.

The infamous “Malek Manual” was the guiding document for that project. This was an 80-page memo associated with a business executive brought into the Nixon Administration as a loyalist to1526960943.jpeg be assigned to political tasks in various agencies.

The manual establishes a system for classifying civil servants on a K, O, L, or N basis — for “Keep,” “Out,” “Let’s Watch,” and “Neuter.” The very project is reflective of an administration with no more regard for the rule of law than the current administration.

The manual rehearses in detail civil service rules of appointment and laments the difficulty of removal and adverse action against civil servants.

The objective is to identify means to circumvent these rules.

As the manual states on p. 72: “there are several techniques which can be designed, carefully, to skirt around the adverse action proceedings.” These include the “frontal assault” involving a frank announcement that the individual “is no longer wanted” and can leave either under favorable conditions immediately or be forced out under humiliating conditions later on.

“There should be no witnesses in the room” for the frontal assault.

Then there is the “special assistant technique” of assigning a “family man” who does not want to travel to duties involving extensive travel in order to force a resignation. The report actually contains this passage: “Until his wife threatens him with divorce unless he quits, you have him out of town and out of the way.”

But even this odious document refers in its conclusion to political costs that will ensue: “There is no question that the effective activities of a political personnel office will invoke a one-shot furor in the hostile press and Congress.” The costs would nonetheless be worth the benefits because of the necessity of establishing “political control.”

That political control, the document arrogantly concludes, “is the difference between ruling and reigning.”

Still, the document was to be kept confidential and there could be no links to the president.

What differs now is the brazenness of the purge and the very public way in which the process is portrayed as a virtuous assault on forces seeking to undermine a legitimately elected political authority.

In fact, while the Nixon era politicization of the civil service relied on secrecy, the “deep state” purge depends on its public nature.

In short, the current occupant of the Oval Office is attempting to turn the world inside out by weaving a story of victimization at the hands of federal institutions – from the intelligence agencies to the Justice Department to the Obama loyalists seeded throughout the federal bureaucracy.

This narrative has gained momentum on Fox and other right-wing media, and has reverberated on the official English-language Russian news station, RT.

If American citizens like my neighbor buy into the “deep state” purge, American democracy is on very treacherous ground indeed. As reported recently by the Washington Post, that is precisely what is happening as increasing numbers of Republicans (now a substantial majority) express opposition to the Mueller probe.

The objective, of course, is to undermine the legitimacy of Mueller’s findings in advance so that it will be possible to continue to wage political war on the findings as a buttress to the legal assault, which may well fail.

But democracy can not function without effective institutions whose legitimacy is widely embraced by citizens. The American political system will bear the costs of this institutional wreckage for years to come.