Tennessean Editorial: To Hell with the Constitution and Democracy

Opening with the premise that President Obama “made a mistake” seeking Congressional approval for military action, A remarkable (and not in a good way) editorial on Syria in this morning’s Tennessean urges Congress to give him that approval anyway. The argument along the way essentially throws democracy and the U.S. Constitution under the bus. Let’s deconstruct.

It should be no surprise to anyone that Americans do not want to get involved in a civil war in Syria. Our strategic interest is hard to discern; there seems to be little prospect for an outcome that makes Syria a better place; and we absolutely do not want to see American troops engaged on the ground.

So of course Obama should launch the missiles! Why should the fact that public support for authorization fails by an astonishing 61-26% tally in a new poll matter?

His decision to plead for permission from Congress to do his job has emboldened Assad, who, in an interview with Charlie Rose, threatened that the U.S. would face “every action” from several parties in the region if it launched strikes.

Please. This is not a “plea for permission” from Congress; it is a request for authorization from the branch of government that has responsibility under the Constitution. The editorial seems to be suggesting that a president should ignore the Constitution because an unhinged madman has (shockingly!) issued nebulous threats in a televised interview.

The president’s waffling has exacerbated the risk to the U.S. and its allies and made the world less safe.

So now deferring to constitutional principles is “waffling.” In the Tennessean‘s way of thinking, real leaders ignore the law.

Having thrown Congress an easy pitch, it is understandable that the president’s political opponents should wish to take advantage of his lack of judgment and hand him an embarrassing defeat — especially when their constituents, regardless of political party, want nothing to do with a military response. But Congress should resist the urge and should give the president authority to act.

So Members of Congress should ignore the overwhelming sentiment of their constituents? Yes, elected officials shouldn’t govern exclusively on the basis of public opinion. But on the matter of making war, surely overwhelming public disapproval should carry the day.

Given the tenor and increasing power of our congressional delegation, this is an excellent chance to demonstrate Tennessee’s leadership and willingness to rise above partisan politics when American authority is under attack.

Not sure what “increasing power” they have in mind, and “rise above partisan politics” doesn’t even pass the laugh test. Yes, Sen. Bob Corker has become an influential voice of reason on some key issues, but the rest of the Tennessee delegation has little to show in the way of important committee leadership posts or significant legislative accomplishments. A few of them get a fair amount of talk show action, but as often as not that’s because they have embarrassed us on the national stage.

Whether the president chooses to launch the strikes he had previously planned, or chooses to use the threat of those authorized strikes to force Assad to abide by international sanctions against chemical weapons — a path that Russia has offered — America should not be in a position where we have hobbled our options.

The notion that honoring the Constitution’s separation of powers represents “hobbling our options” is nothing short of a defense of oligarchy. Ignoring the rule of law when it is inconvenient is the hallmark of tyranny. It’s disappointing to see editorialists at the fish wrapper, who alarmed many of us with their lurch to the right endorsing Mitt Romney last year, now dip their toes in the waters of fascism.

A version of this post appears on the Nashville Scene‘s Pith in the Wind blog.

A Newspaper’s Winning Strategy: Deplete Staff, Dilute Product, Jack Up Price

In a move that truly merits a place of honor in the corporate hallucination hall of fame, the “customer service” wing of The Tennessean dropped me (and presumably all 16 other remaining print subscribers) a line this week informing me that the paper’s utter fabulousness warrants an arresting 26% hike in the subscription price. This big an increase all at once would be irksome on its own given a low-inflation economy and the ever-declining quality of Gannett’s product, but coming as it does on the heels of multiple rounds of newsroom layoffs it’s downright appalling.

Of course, the missive from Customer Service VP Barbara Smith doesn’t bother to mention the old rate or the scope of the increase. The hope, obviously is that we won’t notice its magnitude, nor recall that subscription prices rose big time as recently as mid-2012 when the paper unveiled digital apps and an online paywall. In all, the cost of my seven-day home-delivery subscription in the last 15 months has jumped a whopping 68 percent, from $17.25 in May 2012 to the new rate of $29.00 starting next month.

But it must be worth it, VP Barbara argues, because the daily fish wrapper tells “more local stories that make a difference, protect taxpayers, and touch an emotional chord.” (A 68 percent price hike sure touches an emotional chord.) They “engage readers with timely news information and deliver valuable insights that can’t be found anywhere else.” (Who writes this stuff?) And somehow Ms. Smith finds it in herself to trumpet with a straight typeface the “award-winning tennessean.com site” — a web presence that is widely understood to be badly designed, clumsy in execution, and difficult to navigate. (And don’t get me started on the paper’s abysmal excuse for a smartphone app.) Cities half the size of Nashville have daily papers with better online presence.

Look, we readers get it that the newspaper business is economically dire, and that over the long run, daily dead-tree home delivery is becoming an expensive luxury. Many news organizations are confronting their uncertain future by struggling heroically to maintain the mission and the quality while bracing against the gathering storm. At The Tennessean the approach is a little different: deplete the staff, kill morale, dilute the quality of the product, jack up the prices, and hope nobody notices.

A version of this post appears on the Nashville Scene‘s Pith in the Wind blog.