Mitt’s Mendacious Mook Mishandles Massachusetts Money Math
“The Truth Can Maim You, A Half-Truth Can Kill You” – Editor, TWSA! To paraphrase Joel Best, an author who dissects the political misuse of data,
Witness Mitt Romney’s new sidekick Ed Gillespie’s recent rubbish download last week on FOX News Sunday . A legendary GOP propaganda specialist and Karl Rove clone, Gillespie maintained, among other half-truths and bald-faced lies, that during Romney’s reign as governor.
“The fact is that the average income for a family in Massachusetts went up by $5,500.”
This number is a half-truth, and consequently it can kill, as in kill an oppo-
nent’s message. In this case that message under attack is the more accurate one about the less than stellar way that Mitt, as governor, managed the Massachusetts’ economy from 2003 through 2006.
But before we get into the neat little charts below, let’s agree that we can argue endlessly about the context here. For example,
Can any governmental chief executive – mayor, governor, president – substantially impact the overall economic performance within his or her purview?
Don’t all politicos, indeed, all individuals, try to “massage” data to suit their purposes?
Both are debatable. Both, in the end, eminently political. But let’s put those imponderables aside for now. As in all things political, these questions are answered politically, and partisanship is the trump card in this game.
Mittusing Data. Gillespie’s claim of a $5,500 increase in Massachusetts incomes is correct, yet, nonetheless, that amount greatly overstates the real world value of the income gain. He used an old trick often used by political parties – presenting data in a truthful, yet utterly misleading way. The dreaded half-truth. And a half-truth is twice as hard to snuff out than a whole lie. Here’s how Gillespie did it:
Once at the new image, just click it again for an even larger version.)
And here is the inflation data:
Once at the new image, just click it again for an even larger version.)
What’s the moral here? It’s complicated. Data is inherently political, not at birth, but soon thereafter, indeed, as soon as a political operator determines which message he or she needs to push. The data then “emerge.” In some cases they just make things up (but that’s another story). In most cases they very selectively use half-truth data (like income unadjusted for inflation), or massage data to create a believable message.
In this case of the $5,500 income gain that became a $1,214 gain, Mr. Gillespie wanted to paint Romney as a remarkable governor who managed the state to a large sounding gain in personal incomes, emphasis on the phrases “large sounding.” So he – or his minions – found data that did just that, i.e. average income in the Romney years “unencumbered” by inflation. These numbers aren’t technically “false,” but they are sneaky and shifty, and eaasily refuted if one’s opponent has a bit of savvy.
Now, though, Gillespie’s mendacious message is out there contributing to what is an unfortunatel perception that Mitt Romney was a top drawer governor. As these kinds of half-truths have piled up, he now seems more electable, and polls are moving his way. This is starting to feel like the movie Perfect Storm, where we sit and watch as black beyond black clouds move inexorably toward the Andrea Gail. . .
The moral here then – or morals – are at least two:
We “consumers” of political information need to learn as much as we can about the political misuse of data and statistics, and this applies to our own favored political party; and
The Obama campaign and Democrats in positions where they have the public ear must uncover and expose those times when the GOP mauls and mishandles data, in other words, nearly always. Kickback needs to be swift, hard hitting, and – taking a play from the GOP playbook – it must be repeated and repeated until it gets through.
