The Three Amigos
Are they analysts or advocates?
By Lisa Baker
In 2005, Russ Dondero’s blog went live.
With that, the sought-after political analyst was out of the closet…Out of the closet, down
the street, running naked with a banner: “I’m a screaming liberal.”
Metaphorically speaking.
The blog, located at www.russdonderoweb.com, is a smattering of Dondero’s personal
positions on both national and Oregon political issues, which run to the Air America side
of the ideological spectrum, with anti-Bush screeds and even a campaign endorsement for
a Metro candidate.
It is an offering made surprising not by its content but by the fact that Dondero is one of a
small, elite cadre of Oregon commentators called on specifically to provide apolitical, un-
spun interpretations of political events and issues. On election night, you will usually find
Dondero and his closest contemporaries, Oregon State’s Bill Lunch and Pacific
University’s Jim Moore, providing what is supposed to be decidedly academic,
background observations about voters and issues on local television and radio shows.
But Dondero, a part-time political science professor at Portland State University and
professor emeritus at Pacific University who has appeared on television, on radio and in
nearly every newspaper in the state, wouldn’t say he was out of the closet.
He would say he was never in the closet.
“I’m very open about what I’m about. Everyone who knows me knows where I’m
coming from. I am a flaming-hearted, even bleeding-hearted liberal, and I’m honest about
where I’m coming from,” Dondero says. And while journalists continue to ask him for
objective analysis, they all know about his blog and about his political activism, which
dates from long before the blog.
Indeed, it would be hard for any journalist not to know. Dondero’s blog pops up on any
Internet search of his name. It is a cross reference given in high-profile political blogs
that reporters often use to keep tabs on local political debates. Additionally, Dondero has
appeared at publicized meetings and events as an activist for some of the same causes he
is asked to comment on objectively as an analyst.
Despite his willingness to be identified as an activist, even a liberal activist—“It is what
what I am,” he says—journalists have chosen to describe Dondero simply as a political
scientist, analyst or professor. None has ever identified him as an activist, advocate or
political player, which means voters who hear him speak on political issues or who read his comments on the gubernatorial contest between Ted Kulongoski and Ron Saxton are
likely the only ones who don’t know.
Philip Romero, an economist and University of Oregon business professor (and former
business school dean), also has experience commenting on both national and regional
political issues, having spent the 1990s as chief economist to Republican California
governor Pete Wilson. He isn’t surprised at the three amigos’ liberalism, but at the
media’s naivete. “Liberals outnumber conservatives among university faculty by ten to
one, and probably 20 to one in political science departments,” says Romero. “And
Dondero, et al, are forthright about their biases: they are there for anyone to see. Shame
on the media for failing to note that they are not entirely objective. I suspect that most
reporters, who are equally liberal, simply do not recognize that liberalism is not
synonymous with impartiality.”
- - -
They are friends as well as colleagues, but Moore, Lunch and Dondero have wildly
different styles.
Lunch is the most bookish of the three, couching his analysis in discourse so lengthy and
thick with obscure historical facts and asides, research bits and terminology that people
he insults may take several minutes to realize they were insulted at all. He’s the analyst
only OPB could love.
A regular on KOIN-TV, KXL radio and KINK radio, Moore belies his ever-present
bowtie with a rapid-fire wit and sound bite responses to complex questions. He is a
broadcast media favorite, popularity that Dondero says is a natural outgrowth of Moore’s
“sizzle… He’s more likely to make a flamboyant comment to get people’s attention. He
has a way of being pithy and to the point and hitting it out of the park.”
Dondero describes Lunch as “a liberal fellow, like most political scientists,” but says
Lunch tries to remain true to the goal of objective commentary. “I don’t think he treads
too far into the line of his own opinion. But if you listen, you can get between the lines.”
Dondero himself is the most effusive, even eccentric, of the three. In his blog, he refers to
himself in the third person, by his initials, “RAD.” He admits to prompting some amount
of discomfort in the other two, laughingly lamenting that the two edited out particularly
provocative comments he made in their shared book project, a chapter in “Oregon
Politics and Government: Progressives versus Conservative Populists,” published last
year.
All three claim that they’re fair to both ends of the political spectrum, regardless of how
they may feel personally. Dondero tells how he obtained internships for two former
students—one at the National Rifle Association and the other at the National Abortion
Rights Action League. “I sound like a liberal on KXL because it’s so conservative, and
on KINK, I sound conservative because it’s so liberal.”
But only Dondero is comfortable revealing his biases, calling it “liberating” and “like
jumping into freedom.”
Lunch admits to an occasional temptation to blurt something out, “but one restrains
oneself. If you don’t, you lose credibility as an honest broker. In the short term, it might
seem understandable, but it is a terminal approach.”
His example: Russell Sadler, whose commentaries once appeared statewide in
mainstream media outlets but now tend to appear only on liberal activist websites. “Russ
is well-informed, but he greatly reduced his effectiveness as an analyst by being out front
with advancing his own views. I try to avoid that, to be more even-handed, balanced.”
But Romero notes, “Commentators can’t be simultaneously opinionated and
impartial. Many academics try to have it both ways. The media who identify them—or
me, for that matter—as simply an “academic” are doing a disservice to their audience,
implying a degree of objectivity rarely present in political commentary during these
highly polarized times.”
Of Dondero’s blog, Lunch says he will withhold judgment on its effects for now. “It’s a
work in progress. I don’t know how much it’s going to make his standing as an analyst
suspect. I hope it doesn’t endanger that.”
Dondero says he understands why his colleagues would prefer to remain in the closet.
“The atmosphere in politics in this state is so poisonous that the fear is the minute you
have a label, the audience will tune you out. If there’s a reluctance to be labeled, it’s
because you know people may not like what you say. Maybe they’ll say, ‘Let’s go on to
the sports page.’”
At the same time, Dondero does not believe the blog or any of his political activities will
have any effect on his attraction as an analyst. “I don’t see any harm in being honest.
Oregonians have a history of respecting people who are direct.”
Another factor: “I’m retired,” Dondero points out. “I get my share of calls, but I’m not on
the Rolodex like Jim and Bill are.”
Retired or not, in the past year since the blog went live, news organizations continue to
contact Dondero and use his quotes as objective analysis just as they have in the past. The
Register-Guard, the Statesman Journal, the Medford Mail Tribune, and the Associated
Press have all cited him as a source in recent political coverage, identifying him as a
professor, a political scientist and even a “political blogger,” but not attempting to label
his political advocacy.
“I think most journalists are caught in this sort of nexus of wanting to be neutral and
objective,” Dondero says. “They tend to avoid that (labeling) given my academic
credentials and Ph.D.”
KGW-TV News Director Rod Gramer says his station uses different kinds of
commentators for different things. On election night, he says he prefers to use former
players in the political game—people who have worked inside politics and can give “the
inside story.” But there are times, he says, when an “independent, statistical point of
view” is called for.
All three analysts say their aim is to do just that when required, but they believe their
roles as analysts go further.
“A lot of what Bill, Jim and I do is educate,” Dondero says. “I don’t want to seem
paternalistic, but the role of an academic pundit is to clarify the important questions.
There will be entire stories where I’ve not been quoted but what I told (journalists) is in
the story giving it context. The rewards of being a pundit do not always appear in quote
form but in the fact that you helped shape the way journalists look at something.”
Lunch says he sees political analysis as “on a continuum” between simple reporting and
editorializing. “For me, that involves filling in the blanks, giving background to a given
policy choice.”
For Moore, it’s not enough to inform. “My aim is to tick off extremists on both sides,” he
says. “I figure if I can say something that makes some think I’m a Republican pollster
and others think I’m a Harry Lonsdale tree hugger, I’m doing my job.”
- - -
Lunch initially calls himself a “follower of James Madison,” describing Madison as an
“institutional conservative but a policy liberal,” both terms less than helpful in defining
Lunch’s politics on current issues. More helpful, Lunch says it is former President Bill
Clinton who most closely resembles Madison’s political spirit. Lunch believes:
Oregonians should pay more in taxes, in part to reflect the state’s mid-pack population
density and economic strength; that it’s too easy for Oregonians to get initiatives on the
ballot; and that Canada has proven that universal healthcare is worth the tax burden it
would impose.
On abortion, Lunch says anti-abortion groups are led by people who simply want to “turn
back the clock to a time when women were unable to control their reproductive
lives…not just to ban abortion but also birth control,” he says. “They want to go back to a
past in which the societal structure and rules would not allow women to do any of the
things they do now. I think it’s impossible, but keep in mind, Iran is trying to do that.”
Moore is a registered independent. More tellingly, he prefers to call himself an
“internationalist” whose personal politics, he says, are most inclined toward European
political thought. “I prefer Europe,” he says. He says he doesn’t mind sparring on the left side against KXL conservative Lars Larson
in radio debates but explains, “Sometimes Lars wants me to be a political analyst and
sometimes he needs someone to fight with.”
Moore believes that Oregonians’ ease in getting complex issues to the ballot has resulted
in a “stupid Constitution.” And he loves vote-by-mail. Moore believes school districts
should let voters choose a tax rate that corresponds to the level of success they want for
their children. He thinks Bill Sizemore should “get a life.”
While Moore will cop to some non-litmus policy views, he doesn’t like the idea of
labeling pundits, believing it will lead to more of a dueling-analyst approach seen on
various cable networks. “I’ve seen it on Fox and CNN, and there’s just so much verbiage.
It’s unwatchable.”
Others in academia don’t agree that shedding labels guarantees shedding biases. Says
Romero, “When academics imply Olympian detachment, they can shut off debate—not
coincidentally (in light of media bias) in favor of a liberal perspective, which becomes
the received conventional wisdom. Working for a university is no guarantee of
objectivity—quite the opposite, since activism is again in fashion. You can’t
simultaneously push your line, and then retreat behind an academic title to shield yourself
from dispute. Again, I don’t fault these analysts; I fault the media, which fails its
audience by ignoring the partisan perspective of most of the commentators it quotes.”
In the end, Dondero says he believes the personal views of analysts don’t matter because
they don’t preclude objective thought. “I don’t try to bamboozle people and make them
think I’m not who I am, but I can be equally critical of both parties, both candidates. The
fact is everyone has an angle and at some point, it will come out. There really is no
neutral. It’s why honesty is important.”
Ross Day, spokesman for Oregonians in Action and co-sponsor of Measure 37, the
property rights law, says voters should know that what they hear from some analysts is
tainted by ideology even though it is presented as fact rather than opinion.
“When they cross the line into editorializing, at that point, their proclivities will influence
how we view what is occurring. Let’s say Saxton spends $800,000 on television buys.
One analyst will say he’s desperately trying to gain traction and another will say he’s
trying to pull away. The question is, what color are your glasses?”
“The problem is that the audience thinks these guys are unbiased.”
BrainstormNW - October 2006
|