By Leah Ceccarelli, UW associate professor, Department of Communication

Manufactroversy (măn’yə-făk’-trə-vûr’sē)
(N., pl. -sies)  A manufactured controversy motivated by profit or extreme ideology to intentionally create public confusion about an undisputed issue. The effort is often accompanied by imagined conspiracy theory and major marketing dollars involving fraud, deception and polemic rhetoric.

With all the sophisticated sophistry besieging mass audiences today, there is a need for the study of rhetoric now more than ever before. This is especially the case when it comes to the contemporary assault on science known as manufactured controversy: when significant disagreement doesn’t exist inside the scientific community, but is successfully invented for a public audience to achieve specific political ends.

Three recent examples of manufactured controversy are global warming skepticism, AIDS dissent in South Africa and the intelligent design movement’s “teach the controversy” campaign.

The first of these has been called an “epistemological filibuster” because it magnifies the uncertainty surrounding a scientific truth claim in order to delay  adoption of a policy warranted by that science. Language expert Frank Luntz admitted as much in his now infamous talking points memo on the environment, leaked to the public in 2002, where he confessed that the window for claiming controversy about global warming was closing, but he nonetheless urged Republican congressional and executive leaders “to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.” ExxonMobil was doing this when it published its “Unsettled Science” advertisement about climate science on the editorial pages of the New York Times in March 2000. A January guest editorial in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer  made the same claim. All three seemed to be following the playbook of the tobacco industry after scientists discovered that their products cause cancer. When a threat to their interests arises from the scientific community, they declare “there are always two sides to a case,” and then call for more study of the matter before action is taken.

I think it’s shortsighted to cede the public stage to the anti-science forces in the naive hope that no one will pay attention to them.

South African President Thabo Mbeki’s support for AIDS dissent eight years ago is a similar case. Like global warming skepticism, this assault on the science of HIV/AIDS research ingeniously turned the scientific community’s values against it by drawing on the importance of rational open debate, a skeptical attitude, and the need for continued research.

Mbeki alleged that the mainstream scientific community branded scientists who questioned the causal link between HIV and AIDS as “dangerous and discredited, with whom nobody, including ourselves, should communicate.” Claiming the successful dissident’s authority in post-apartheid South Africa, Mbeki condemned the mainstream scientific community for occupying “the frontline in the campaign of intellectual intimidation and terrorism which argues that the only freedom we have is to agree with what they decree to be established scientific truths.”

A parallel case is made by the intelligent design movement in conjunction with its “teach the controversy” campaign against evolutionary biology. Ben Stein’s movie, "Expelled," portrays scientists as participating in a vast conspiracy to silence anyone who questions  Darwinian orthodoxy.

This movie promises to be the most extreme application of the intelligent design movement’s wedge strategy to break the supremacy of evolutionary theory in contemporary science. Just as a wedge can be set into a chink in a solid structure and, with the careful application of some concentrated force, will split that structure to pieces, so too do the producers of this movie hope  it can break the scientific community and allow for a change in how science is taught. Of course, any biologist claim that there is no scientific controversy merely feeds the conspiracy theory.

In light of this difficulty, some have suggested that the best response to manufactured controversy is no response at all. They say that countering such nonsense merely gives these modern-day sophists publicity and enables their continued efforts to reopen debate on settled science. I understand this impulse to remain silent in the face of foolishness, but as a professor of rhetoric, I think it’s shortsighted to cede the public stage to the anti-science forces in the naive hope that no one will pay attention to them.

Ever since the field of rhetoric was born, there have been those who misuse the power of persuasion to mislead public audiences, and it has been only through vigilant counter-persuasion that such deception has been overcome.

The ancient sophists, or “wise men” (wise guys?) who taught the new art of rhetoric to those who would pay their fee in the 5^th century B.C., included Gorgias, who was said to have boasted that he could persuade the multitude to ignore the expert and listen to him instead, and Protagoras, who claimed that there are always two sides to a case, and it’s the sophist’s job to make the worse case appear the stronger. It was to oppose this kind of deception that Aristotle codified the art of rhetoric in his treatise by that title. He recognized that before lay audiences “not even the possession of the exactest knowledge” ensures that a speaker will be persuasive, so Aristotle promoted the study of rhetoric so experts could confute those who try to mislead public audiences.

Today’s sophists exploit a public misconception about science, portraying it as a structure of complete consensus built from the steady accumulation of unassailable data.

As a scholar of rhetoric, I have studied some modern cases of manufactured controversy to discover how to best confute these contemporary sophists, and I have come up with some preliminary hypotheses about what makes their arguments so persuasive to a public audience.

First, they skillfully invoke values that are shared by the scientific community and the American public alike, like free speech, skeptical inquiry, and the revolutionary force of new ideas against a repressive orthodoxy. It is difficult to argue against someone who invokes these values without seeming unscientific or un-American.

Second, they exploit a tension between the technical and public spheres in postmodern American life. Highly specialized scientific experts can’t spare the time to engage in careful public communication, and are then surprised when the public distrusts, fears, or opposes them.

Third, today’s sophists exploit a public misconception about science, portraying it as a structure of complete consensus built from the steady accumulation of unassailable data. Any dissent by any scientist is then seen as evidence that there’s no consensus, and thus truth must not have been discovered yet. A more accurate portrayal of science sees it as a debate among a community of experts in which one side outweighs the other in the balance of the argument, and that side is declared the winner. A few skeptics might remain, but they’re vastly outnumbered by the rest, and the democratic process of science moves forward with the collective weight of the majority of expert opinion. Scientists buy into this democratic process when they enter the profession, so that a call for the winning side to share power in the science classroom with the losers, or to continue debating an issue that has already been settled for the vast majority of scientists so that policy makers can delay taking action on their findings, seems particularly undemocratic to most of them.

Aristotle believed that things that are true “have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites,” but that it takes a good rhetor to ensure that this happens when sophisticated sophistry is on the loose.

I concur. Only by exposing manufactured controversy for what it is, recognizing its rhetorical power and countering those who are skilled at getting the multitude to ignore experts and imagine a scientific debate where none exists, can scientists and their allies use my field. They can achieve what Aristotle envisioned for rhetoric: a study that helps the argument appears and truly is stronger before an audience of nonexperts.

By Paul Steven Miller, Henry M. Jackson Professor of Law, and Dick Thornburgh, former governor of Pennsylvania and former U.S. Attorney General 

A treaty that took effect in May could benefit one quarter of humanity: the 650 million people, as well as their families, who live with disabilities. The U.N. International Treaty on the Rights of People with Disabilities is also the first international treaty that guarantees the rights of such people to equality and self-determination.

People with disabilities are the world’s largest minority, yet the United Nations reports that only 45 countries have disability rights laws.

The U.S. hasn't signed the treaty, either, but it should.

The U.S. pioneered rights for people with disabilities when Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act and other disability rights laws in 1990. As former political officials of two different presidential administrations, one Republican and one Democratic, we strongly believe that the U.S. should ratify this treaty. We believe that it is consistent with American law. It incorporates many of the principles in U.S. law, such as full inclusion and the right to reasonable accommodation. Disability rights are and should always be a non-partisan issue.

In far too many nations, people with disabilities lack rights to vote, work, marry, own property, sign contracts or retain custody of their children. Ninety percent of children with disabilities in less developed nations receive no education. In every nation, people with disabilities are the poorest of the poor. The U.S. is no different: 70 percent of people with disabilities who want to work remain unemployed, despite the fact that such people demonstrate better retention rates than workers without disabilities.

The treaty will change these statistics. Since the U.N. opened the treaty for signatures just over a year ago, 24 nations have ratified it. An additional 103 nations have signed the treaty, signaling intent to ratify it soon, and commitment to refrain from contradicting its purpose and object.

The treaty enshrines important principles that Americans hold dear: non-discrimination, equal protection under the law and the right to autonomy and independent living in integrated, community settings.

The U.S. pioneered rights for people with disabilities when Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act and other disability rights laws in 1990. As former political officials of two different presidential administrations, one Republican and one Democratic, we strongly believe that the U.S. should ratify this treaty. We believe that it is consistent with American law. It incorporates many of the principles in U.S. law, such as full inclusion and the right to reasonable accommodation. Disability rights are and should always be a non-partisan issue.

The U.S. reluctance to sign this treaty has been painful and puzzling to us. The treaty provides important protections, beyond the specific protections of the American law, which level the playing field for people with disabilities. And we should not be so proud as to think we cannot learn from other countries about even better opportunities for people with disabilities.

We know that our society is richer, and that everyone benefits from including people with disabilities in schools, housing, workplaces, voting booths, houses of worship, public accommodations and every other sphere of life.

Countries that ratify the Convention agree to set up independent monitoring bodies to track treaty compliance, which would help us identify reforms we need to get more Americans with disabilities into the workplace, and to dismantle barriers to independent living in integrated and accessible housing.

Ratification would also help the U.S. stop disability discrimination around the world, thus helping us reclaim our role as champions of human rights. It would help the U.S. focus world attention on those whose rights have been ignored far too long.

By Kathy Gill, UW senior lecturer in the Master of Communication in Digital Media Program

Who knows if it's the result of campaign weariness, campaign rhetoric or social media technologies, but today's America seems the most divided that I have seen in my lifetime.

The Democratic Party still has no clear nominee (set super delegates aside for the moment). Supporters of each candidate (Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama) would feel disenfranchised should their candidate lose in Denver. So much so, in fact, that some say they would vote for the Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain, in November.

The Republican Party seems no less divided. It's just that they aren't hanging their dirty laundry in public. If the Republicans picked their nominee like the Democrats (no winner-take-all caucuses or primaries), then it's likely they'd not have a winner yet, either. Remember, even with the other big guns out of the race, and with McCain as the presumed nominee, Rep. Ron Paul took 16 percent of the Pennsylvania vote.

And then there's the disintermediation facilitated by Web technologies.

Ah, don't let your eyes glaze over! Disintermediation is a fancy way of saying Web technologies help cut out the middleman. This is disruptive for existing institutions, like newspapers that are losing advertisers to firms like eBay and craigslist.com. It's also disruptive for software firms like Microsoft, which competes with Google for information customers, and television networks  and cable firms which face competition from YouTube, Amazon UnBox and iTunes.

Why should political parties be immune from competition?

The short answer: they shouldn't be and aren't.

Candidates like Sen. Obama and Rep. Paul have done an excellent job of marshaling social media technologies to raise money and generate grassroots support. But the ultimate change might be that these technologies make it easy for ordinary people to connect with people who "think like me." Thus, the technologies enable fragmentation; in this way, social media technologies are the polar opposite of broadcast (one way) media technologies.

Is the two-party system on deathbed? Should it be?

By Kathy Gill, UW senior lecturer in the Master of Communication in Digital Media Program

When I think of Pennsylvania, I remember the summer of 1976 and my first visit to Phildelphia: the Liberty Bell; the drive up from Washington, DC, and the confusing route around the airport into the city; tall ships in the harbor; street smells and the unparalleled taste of hot, soft Philly pretzels (with mustard!) and fresh-off-the-street Philly cheese steaks; Bookbinders restaurant, where I would learn to love oysters.

Little did I know that four years later I would be living in Philadelphia, serving as a liaison between urban Philly and rural dairy farmers, reuniting with the farming culture I thought I'd left behind when I escaped rural south Georgia.

It's hard for me to imagine what's going through the minds of voters and politicos as the eyes of the nation -- and the world -- focus on Tuesday's historic primary. This is the first time since Jimmy Carter clinched the nomination here in 1976 that the Pennsylvania primary has been meaningful. This contest is over 158 pledged delegates (55 at-large and 103 by Congressional District), but it's also about perception.

Take a look at the delegate chart: the candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, are separated by approximately 7%. The super-delegates are not bound by anything but their consciences. They can change their minds anytime -- so those numbers are very soft. Plus, almost half haven't publicly committed to either candidate.

Even more important -- and overlooked:  Pledged delegates are bound only on the first vote: If neither candidate achieves a majority of the first vote on the Democratic Convention floor, delegates are released from their original preference and allowed to vote for whomever they please. Just like super-delegates.

Now, I ask you: if you were the person in second place in a contest this close, would you be throwing in the towel? I don't think I would.

by David Bachman, UW professor of international studies

The Dalai Lama, in his simple robes, stooped shoulders, and in his discussion of peace, compassion, and healing, presents a compelling figure. As the leader of the Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism, and the head of the Tibetan government in exile, he also embodies a number of messages. Many of those messages were on display during his visit to Seattle and the University of Washington.

For those who have seen him in the past, and those who had never seen him in person before (me) and who have open minds, he leaves a powerful impression. He is engaging, funny, self-deprecating, energetic, and to use the overused word, charismatic. The message he repeated in many of his public appearances, sponsored by a group called Seeds of Compassion, was not surprisingly, compassion. His lectures on the subject were powerful, but in many respects, they weren’t all that different than what the “cosmopolitan” versions of many religious faiths argue for today, at least in regards to secular behavior and attitudes. In terms of content, it seemed to me that the Dalai Lama’s message was quite similar to that of the Pope’s when the latter spoke to the UN today. We are all part of one humanity, we are all hurt when others are hurt, and we hurt ourselves when we hurt others. Were we all to live and act by these beliefs, the world would undoubtedly be a better place.

"Perspectives on the Dalai Lama's visit," by David Bachman, UW professor of international studies, posted Monday, April 21, 2008, to blogs.uwnews.org. UW news blogs is a service of uwnews.org, the University of Washington Office of News and Information.

by James K. Wellman Jr., UW associate professor of American religion and chair of the comparative religion program in the Jackson School of International Studies

The visit of the Dalai Lama to Seattle has struck me as both full of innocence and naivete. Many have commented on the power of his message of compassion. They have been drawn to it primarily because it is a spiritual way and not a religion. It is a quintessential Northwestern distinction, one can be spiritual but not religious. The implication is that spirituality is good and kind, and religion is perverse and corrupt. This strikes me as innocent and naive. 

The Dalai Lama from all that I know is a very good man, compassionate and kind, but he is a distinctively religious and political figure. That is, he embodies a metaphysical tradition that is more than 2,500 years old, representing a philosophy of relating to a power that is bigger than the self and group, representing a tradition of belief, practice and ritual. In the Western academic study of religion this is a religion. As for politics, the Dalai Lama represents the interests and concerns of a people; he heads a government; he speaks about the need for autonomy for a people; he asks for China to be kind. What else is this than a political act, seeking to influence interests, protecting a people from incursion by another political power?

Religion and politics, from my research, can never be separated. They are always tangled together; think of the Christian Right in recent American politics; think of the Religious Left in the campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton; think of any number of examples in various forms of political religion in the Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist worlds. Religion creates, establishes and mobilizes individuals and groups to seek influence, and it often does so with enormous power--for good and ill. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Baptist preacher who helped to move a nation to civil rights for African Americans; Bishop Desmond Tutu, an Anglican bishop, helped reconcile the nation of South Africa following apartheid. Religion, whether one likes it or not, plays a huge role in politics.

The Dalai Lama appears to be a spiritual and compassionate man, but he has importance because he has political power. The two go hand in hand. Not to see this seems to me innocent and naive. 

"Make no mistake about the Dalai Lama," by James K. Wellman, UW associate professor of American religion, chair of comparative religion program in the Jackson School of International Studies, posted Monday, April 14, 2008, to blogs.uwnews.org. UW news blogs is a service of uwnews.org, the University of Washington Office of News and Information.

By Christopher Parker, UW assistant professor of political science

Obama’s speech in March about race relations demonstrates genuine patriotism.

The senator used Rev. Wright’s comments to highlight African Americans' continuing struggle for the American dream. He discussed slavery, how through segregation and discrimination it ultimately foreclosed on the chances of African Americans. In fact, all blacks have ever wanted is for America to honor its values. Even during World War II, when Jim Crow was vigorously enforced in the South, black southerners were fiercely allegiant to American values (if not practices).

Obama said that even among members of the black middle class, who managed to escape the hopelessness of the inner city, race continues to shape world views, likely through everyday slights in the workplace and other places such as restaurants. Blacks, understandably, remain angry at the persistence of racism.

Obama then turned to class and the resentment harbored by working-class whites who remain angry at blacks’ perceived advantages. For whites, it’s a zero-sum game in which black progress comes at their expense.

In short, Obama suggested, blacks resent whites for continuing racism, and working-class whites resent blacks because they perceive themselves unfairly disadvantaged by programs designed to close the racial economic divide.

True patriots rail against oppression and corruption. They are committed to the common good, not the welfare of a few. In this light, Obama’s speech must be considered patriotic. He addressed anger and resentment of both blacks and working-class whites by emphasizing the promise of America.

Ultimately, Obama’s speech was about working to perfect a union by drawing upon the ideals on which the union was founded. What’s not patriotic about that?

"Obama's Patriotism: Towards a More Perfect Union," by Christopher Parker, UW assistant professor of political science, posted Thursday, April 10, 2008, to blogs.uwnews.org. UW news blogs is a service of uwnews.org, the University of Washington Office of News and Information.

By Michael K. Honey, UW Haley Professor of Humanities

Sen. Barack Obama, in his books and in a recent speech, explains why Americans have been pitted against one another by race, and how to get beyond it. He asks us to "break out of the racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years."

He also offers ways to get beyond race to a greater degree of social and economic justice. He calls on ethnic minorities and white Americans to recognize that we all need the same things -- better health care, better schools, better jobs -- and can get them only by joining to find solutions to our common problems.

Obama calls on us to build a new movement "to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America."

The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be proud. Forty years ago, he called for a multiracial coalition to end poverty, racism and war, and called it the Poor People's Campaign. King said our dire situation called for a "planetary movement" for social and economic justice. Above all, King believed in the power of love to transform the individual, and society. "Someone," he said, "must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate."

In the spring of 1968, many of us hoped that a new president and a movement would create new priorities. On April 4 in Memphis, an assassin took King's life. On June 5, another assassin killed Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy. Both men had called for withdrawal from the Vietnam War and for shifting the nation's spending from military pursuits to creating jobs and ending poverty. Their deaths shattered our hopes.

Instead of moving toward reform, Americans elected Richard Nixon as president. His "secret plan" for peace consisted of seven more years of murderous military escalation. That "surge" resulted in the loss of millions of lives. Nixon began the coded racial appeals that expanded the Republican Party in the South but divided voters along racial lines. His "southern strategy" has prevailed in politics ever since.

King's dreams of a labor-civil rights coalition, a peaceful foreign policy, mitigating racism and ending poverty were destroyed. Now we stand eerily at another crossroads. Our current government's priorities are even more skewed than in 1968. We face the devastating economic and moral consequences of a potentially $3 trillion war; a massive bailout of Wall Street companies and CEOs, and a trillion dollars in tax cuts for the rich that have swelled budget deficits. Government resources for our infrastructure, education, health care and basic human needs continue to dwindle.

Will a progressive reform movement fix what ails us, or will we fall back on another conservative leader who relies on military escalation and "free market" nonsolutions to problems of human need? Will we fall prey to racial slogans and sound bites intended to confuse rather than to clarify? Or will we move America and the world in a better direction?

Sometimes, it seems we have learned little from our history or from King. On the first day of class, I ask students what King was doing when he was killed. Almost none of them know that King died in the midst of a strike for union recognition. They don't know King was one of the labor movement's strongest supporters or identify him with demands for economic justice. They know nothing about his Poor People's Campaign.

On April 3, in his last speech, King said, "I may not get there with you, but I want you to know that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land!" Yet we are doing fewer of the things that he said could take us there, and more of those things that he predicted would lead us into a nightmare of violence and economic inequality.

Forty years later, we have a black man running for president, enunciating King's politics of hope for a better world. The challenge he raises is clear: We must create a multiracial coalition for a new kind of country and a new kind of world as if our lives depend upon it. Because they do. Forty years since Memphis, let's hope it is not too late.

"MLK's agenda remains unfinished," by Michael Honey, UW Haley Professor of Humanities, posted Tuesday, April 8, 2008, to blogs.uwnews.org. UW news blogs is a service of uwnews.org, the University of Washington Office of News and Information.

By Kathy Gill, UW senior lecturer in the Master of Communication in Digital Media Program

Most political action committees represent special interests: business, labor or issue/ideology. But a growing number are run by U.S. senators and representatives.

In the 2006 election cycle, 291 leadership PACs contributed $42 million to incumbents and challengers running for Congress. In the 1998 cycle, there were only 120 leadership PACs contributing $11 million. A four-fold increase in eight years -- yet the number of traditional PACs peaked in 1988.

In the 2006 election cycle, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) raised, and spent, almost $8 million but contributed a mere $356,000 (5% of expenses) to other candidates. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) raised $4.4 million, spent $3.7 million and contributed $595,000 (16% of expenses) to other candidates. Finally, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) raised $2.9 million, spent $3 million and contributed $297,000 (10% of expenses) to other candidates. Her PAC ended the cycle with only $31,000 on hand (like McCain, at $33,000, but not like Obama, who ended with $678,000).

That's about $15 million raised (ostensibly) to help get your party elected or re-elected to Congress. It's almost enough to have given $5,000 (the limit per campaign cycle) to every congressional (Senate and House) race. But that's not how the money seems to be spent.

According to a 2006 report in the Washington Post, one of the reasons leadership PACs are controversial is that they are so unregulated: for example, the "personal use" prohibition that applies to campaign committees is absent. Does that explain all the travel expenses in McCain's and Obama's PAC statements?

Under Federal Election Commission rules, a leadership PAC is known as a "nonconnected PAC" -- after all, it's not connected with an organization; it's associated with an elected official. The only restriction on spending is that the senator or representative cannot use the funds to directly support his or her personal campaign. Indirect support through polling or consulting? Sure.

But as we can see from looking at the campaign contribution to expenditure ratios for the three presidential candidates, not a lot of money is going to other campaign funds. It's going into travel (charters and limos), polling, direct mail, other political consultants.

PACs have been around since 1944. The FEC limits how much they can contribute per candidate per election cycle ($5,000) and how much an individual can contribute to the PAC per election cycle ($5,000).

And although PACs symbolize the problem with money and politics to many people, a 2007 report by the Congressional Quarterly noted that the PAC issue has become secondary to concerns over special interest monies through other channels (pdf). The number of PACs peaked in 1988 at 4,268. However, in 2004, incumbent members of the House received 41% of their campaign contributions from PACs, suggesting that they still have influence. In presidential elections, however, they are inconsequential.

"Should Senators Operate PACs," by UW Senior Lecturer Kathy Gill, posted Thusrsday, April 3, to blogs.uwnews.org. UW news blogs is a service of uwnews.org, the University of Washington Office of News and Information.

By Walter Williams, UW emeritus professor of public affairs, and Bryan Jones, UW professor of political science 

As the United States teeters on the verge of recession, the emerging view is that the branches of government responded with notable swiftness to enact an economic stimulus package. Glowing accounts of the striking bipartisanship came forth from the president and congressional leaders of both political parties as well as mainstream analysts.

Quick, however, is not necessarily good. The stimulus package does not come close to bringing the biggest bang for the buck, despite widespread agreement among respected economists across the political spectrum about the most effective options.

One-third of the costs go for a business tax break that cannot help, while two options rejected by the Bush Republicans -- extending the unemployment benefits and increasing food stamps -- are actually six times more effective in stimulating economic activity per dollar of costs than the costly business tax break.

Rather than see the stimulus package as a political and economic success, we see it as a mark of the continued failure of the political system to face problems and design policies directed at ameliorating them.

First, the experience with the economic stimulus package shows clearly that the federal government now lacks the capacity to cope with the massive economic problems that are pushing the nation toward second-class economic status.

Second, the source of this inability is the unshakeable ideological belief of President Bush and the Republican Party that income tax cuts are the cure-all for the nation's economic problems. This core belief led to a flawed stimulus package, a repeat of the bad logic leading to the administration's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Third, the 2008 legislation has many of the same flaws as the earlier tax cuts that put the U.S. on the path toward fiscal insolvency, left the middle class in the worst financial straits in the post-World War II era, and brought the widest income inequality since the 1920s-effects we document clearly in our new book, "The Politics of Bad Ideas: The Great Tax Cut Delusion and the Decline of Good Government in America."

We watched in horror as the president and Congress traveled the same road to pass the ineffective economic stimulus package. It seems like we are seeing the movie sequel titled TAX CUT DISASTER III.

As in the first two movies, the ideological commitment to the Great Tax Cut Delusion has been buttressed by Bush's refusal to look at plain evidence of how severely the 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts damaged the fiscal balance sheet of the nation and the health of its economy. This intransigence has been aided and abetted by the continuing reluctance of the congressional Democrats to take a stand against Bush's destructive tax cuts.

A stimulus package similar to the final bill had been negotiated in the House by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and the House Republican leader John A. Boehner of Ohio. It provided full rebates for most tax filers of $600 for individuals up to $75,000 of income, $1,200 for couples up to $150,000 and $300 per child.

Those earning at least $3,000 a year but paying no income taxes receive $300 per individual and $600 per couple. The main business tax cut allows for "accelerated depreciation."

There is widespread agreement among respected economists of different political persuasions on the impact of available options for stimulating the economy.

Mark Landi, the chief economist of Economy.com, has assessed various tax and spending changes by determining the increased economic activity per dollar of cost. The greater the increase in economic activity for each $1 of outlay, the greater will be the effectiveness.

Landi found the most effective option to be a temporary increase in food stamp benefits that yields $1.73 additional economic activity per dollar of cost. A close second is extending unemployment benefits at $1.64 in increased activity for each $1 paid to the eligible unemployed.

The director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, observed: "Food stamp and unemployment benefits can affect spending after two months, rebates would affect spending at the end of 2008." The Congressional Budget Office rated options on three criteria: cost-effectiveness, timeliness and certainty of effect. Unemployment benefits and food stamps were the only options to win CBO's highest rating as an effective stimulus in all three categories. No other option received the top rating in more than one category.

Accelerated depreciation write-offs -- the main tax cut for business in both the House and Senate --yields $0.27 in economic activity per dollar of tax cut. Thus, its impact per dollar of cost generates one-sixth as much economic activity as that of a dollar in food stamps or unemployment benefits. And the tax cuts cannot be implemented until late spring or summer at the earliest, while unemployment insurance and food stamps could have an effect almost immediately.

Democrats and Republicans made important trade offs in the House package. But the latter shaped the package both by forcing through the roughly $50 billion for business and blocking any benefits for food stamp and unemployment insurance benefits. The $50 billion for benefits to business that the Republicans demanded as the "price" for their support of the stimulus package rendered the $150 billion legislation marginally effective at best.

Senate Democrats lost in their fight for food stamps and unemployment insurance. The GOP won again in the case of a $300 payment to 20 million Social Security recipients and 250,000 disabled veterans after strong protests from the aged and veterans lobbies. The House quickly agreed to add a $300 rebate to the bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, sought to bluff the Republicans. He threatened to put up for vote only the Senate bill that included unemployment insurance benefits and the House legislation without the $300 rebates for Social Security recipients and disabled veterans. But he backed down and the Republicans added not only the $300 tax rebates but an amendment disqualifying illegal immigrants.

One can view the legislation as a victory over gridlock and partisan bickering. The stimulus package gained wide praise as a good bill mainly because it seemed to feature the kind of hard work and compromise by the two parties that had vanished in the Bush presidency. Yet the final legislation is an overwhelming victory for Bush's tax cut ideology over sane economic reasoning.

Why did the Republicans refuse to use the two most effective options developed by highly reputable experts? We can find no explanation in any of the usual suspects: The package was not sensibly designed to stimulate the economy, and, if politicians are held accountable for economic performance, it was not designed to help them stay in office.

In particular, Republican true believers refused to deviate from what the authors call "The Great Tax Delusion," in which tax cuts are the optimum fix for economic ills whatever the "facts on the ground."

Republican tax cut dogma rules out budget expenditures such as unemployment benefits or any other highly effective spending programs on ideological grounds alone. In contrast, the belief in the force of business incentives to stimulate investment is impervious to either economic reasoning or sound evidence showing how poorly this option works.

A September 2007 report by the major Wall Street investment firm of Goldman-Sachs made the point that companies invest money on hand if the expected returns are likely to exceed the costs of a new project, "and that usually requires growth in demand strong enough to put pressure on existing resources."

In the case at hand, it does not take training in graduate level economics, only a little common sense, to figure out that the declining demand in the current downturn makes investments unattractive even if funds are available.

Research gave the same answer. In their Federal Reserve study of the effects of the accelerated depreciation incentives initiated in 2002 and increased in 2003 to stimulate the weak economy, the researchers found "only a very limited impact" at best on new investment.

The Democrats did force the Republicans to improve the economic stimulus package somewhat, but The Great Tax Delusion still dominated the final legislation. Despite this, the economic stimulus package -- a replay of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that warrants the label TAX CUT DISASTER III --won praise as the kind of bipartisanship needed in the federal government.

Putting the business benefits in the final legislation is the opposite of real bipartisanship. Bush intransigence and the Democrats timidity produced a bill that had none of highly effective stimulus options and wasted one-third of the total funds on business benefits shown to be ineffective by economic reasoning and research on a similar earlier effort.

The almost-uniform praise by the chattering classes and the press of a process that led to a flawed economic stimulus legislation as exemplary bipartisanship is deeply disturbing, bordering on a national delusion.

Rather than coming to praise this process, we'd like to bury it. It is just one more depressing example that the federal government lacks the will to cope with the major economic problems that threaten the United States.

For seven years, the Bush's tax cut ideology has trumped reality, harmed the nation's economy and its governing institutions, and pushed the middle class into the worst financial mess since the Great Depression.

The Great Tax Cut Delusion and its false promise of a free lunch for the American people must be cast aside as a patent medicine dangerous for the nation's health. If not, we risk speeding rapidly toward a second tier economy and a vanishing middle class.

"False Promise of Free Lunch," by UW Professors Walter Williams and Bryan Jones, posted Friday, March 21 to blogs.uwnews.org. UW news blogs is a service of uwnews.org, the University of Washington Office of News and Information.

by David Domke, professor of communication and head of journalism

A week ago, a group of University of Washington students traveled to Texas for five days to cover the "primacaucus" — a complicated combination of primary voting and caucusing that had the potential to end both the Democratic and Republican presidential contests on Tuesday, March 4. We thought it would be a grand learning experience, perhaps even a historic one. It was that and more: We saw the future of political journalism in America.

Along the way, we burned a shoe, were embraced by the Houston gay and lesbian community, went to church several times, met feminist icon Gloria Steinem and watched her words get twisted, saw the Clinton campaign literally turn things around overnight, experienced moments of mountaintop exhilaration as well as sleep-deprived exhaustion, and, on the final day, I — the professor on this wild ride — landed in the hospital, from which I am writing via wireless connection.

This is Journalism 2025. And it is good.

The trip to Texas was part of a last push of reporting on the presidential campaign for 16 students who, in recent weeks, had also covered contests in Idaho and Washington. Our forum has been a Web site called Seattlepoliticore, and we've sought to mix traditional reporting practices of verified facts and vetted sources with the kind of first-person commentary common among Internet bloggers.

When we created our site in early February, the students wondered if anyone would read it. A month later, they've posted hundreds of stories, photos, and videos on our site and also been invited to provide material to The Seattle Times, the Idaho Statesman, The Huffington Post, Crosscut, the popular "Texas on the Potomac" political blog of the Houston Chronicle, Texas' largest newspaper, and on the election section of KIRO-AM's Web site. The volume of output by the students has surpassed anything I envisioned and propelled them to become markedly better journalists.

Further, countless others began linking to Seattlepoliticore, and we found our content picked up by bloggers and traditional news outlets from New York to Miami to San Francisco to even Europe. Traffic increased so much and so fast that the site crashed twice within the span of a few days — both times engendering a mixture of unabashed joy and anxiety among the students. More than once while in Texas, the students interviewed people who said they had read things we had written, which made even their prof proud.

In today's politics and media environment, one can be part of the conversation within minutes and on a shoestring budget. We're proof of that.

For example, by the time we stepped off the plane in Texas, we were equipped with a web of contacts — aided by campaign staffers' always-on availability via cell phones and Blackberries, social networking sites such as Facebook, numerous blogs, and the online presence of news organizations. We split into teams and spent days traveling between Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Waco, and other points. The students took with them cell phones, laptops, pocket-size digital cameras, and wireless network cards (the latter have been the envy of several traditional reporters over the past month), which allowed me to talk with them roughly every few minutes, give or take a minute. I may not have been standing next to them, but I was with them every step.

One of those steps burned a hole in student Will Mari's shoe. He and two classmates were in East Austin, interviewing people at an Obama neighborhood event. While talking with the evening's burger-flipper, Obama volunteer Rudy Malveaux, Mari smelled burnt rubber. He looked down and noted that he was standing on a red-hot barbecue coal. He calmly stamped it out and kept reporting. When you've been in a van going 100 mph to get to a caucus in Idaho and now traveled across the country into the heart of Texas, you don't let a little shoe-fire stop you. But you don't disregard it entirely, either. Instead, Mari wrote it into his coverage of the event, providing a personalized, on-the-scene report that typifies journalistic blogging.

The following day, three other students headed to Houston to cover some campaign door-knocking. En route, they called a local contact (developed through a blog forum prior to arrival in state), who suggested the trio head to Montrose, a gathering place for gays and lesbians. The students found the community via GPS, walked into a coffee shop, and started asking about the locals' political leanings.

Soon they were talking with an out-of-state volunteer who was a former Montana state representative who had opposed gay rights and now was an Obama delegate living in Bellingham. Interesting stuff.

But wait, there's more: The volunteer had been Tom Lee when he lived in Montana but now identified as Rebekah Lee. For student journalists down from Seattle, this was like manna from heaven. But it also required sensitivity and top-to-bottom reporting. Time on the Internet verified some claims, and then the students went old school. They called the Montana Legislative Services Division in Helena and had the librarians fax information about the former representative. They tracked down other sources in Montana. Their initiative got them a first-rate story, which is now being picked up around the Web.

The students talked to so many people in Montrose — what the locals called "the gayborhood" — that by the time they left, they were honorary members: The coffee shop packed them food for the road, and there were hugs all around.

For good or for bad, this wasn't detached, objective reporting. But the end result was journalism featured in the mainstream San Francisco Chronicle's blog and alternative outlet The Advocate. Hitting the sweet spot of both is unusual these days but will be common in tomorrow's political journalism.

Hoping to feel similar Houston love, five other students spent Sunday morning, March 2, in church there. Actually, it was multiple churches. Some went to Joel Osteen's mammoth Lakewood Church — just missing Bill and Chelsea Clinton, who had come unannounced to an ear