My professional conflicts aside, if you haven't read Newsweek recently, you should pick it up. Transition has, ironically, been good for the magazine. There seems to be more reporting, more interesting takes, a bit more of an excited, carefree attitude. Eve Conant had a great piece last week about Marijuana and the GOP. A couple weeks earlier, there was a piece about the religious politics of Vladamir Putin's latest puppet in Chechnya. But I write not to praise, but because I just read the magazine's current cover story, The Newsweek Power 50.
This is a list, and everyone loves lists, but it is a list with a novel premise: That money equals power in politics. "In an oversaturated, hypercommodified media culture of 2010, the most influential political figures are generally the ones who make the most money peddling their perspectives," runs the thesis. Note the use of the word "generally," a pretty big qualification that gets left out of the pull quote in the layout of the magazine. But even with that hedge, the thesis is balderdash. Herewith is my own list explaining why:
1. Money is a poor approximation of power in just about any field. Don't believe me, tune into Game 5 of the World Series tonight. On opening day, the San Francisco Giants had a payroll of about $100 million, less than half of the New York Yankees. The Texas Rangers had a $55 million payroll, down about $13 million from 2009--the fourth lowest in Major League Baseball. Look at CEO pay: The top CEO earner over the five year period that ended in 2009 was Larry Ellison of Oracle, a smart guy with a good company who took in $944 million. But try to make an argument that he has more power in the industry than Apple's Steve Jobs, who took made about one third less in the same period. Lew Frankfort of Coach, the handbag company, ranks #7 over five years with $220 million. Good for him. But try and make the case that Frankfort has more power than Goldman Sach's Lloyd Blankfein ($137 million) or General Electric's Jeffrey Immelt ($71 million). So it goes.
2. Earning power in political entertainment is not the same thing as political influence. Over the last two years, there has been no hotter political punditry stock than Glenn Beck, who comes in #2 on the Newsweek list and usually gets between 2 million and 3 million viewers a night. That is a big number for cable television, but not a big number in politics. Barack Obama got 69 million votes in 2008. In 2006, California Senator Diane Feinstein was reelected with 5 million votes. But numbers only begin to tell this story. The vast political entertainment machine, which traffics in outrage on the left and the right, has proven that it can make money in all kinds of ways (radio, television, books, live shows) from niche audiences. But it has not proven that it can control the fate of the nation. Despite the protestations of Talk Radio, the Republican Party abandoned many of its core conservative values during the presidency of George W. Bush. Rush Limbaugh (#1 on the Newsweek list) had a bigger audience than Tom Delay, but Delay decided what happened in the U.S. House, not Limbaugh. So it will be the next time Republicans regain control of Congress and the White House.
3. The Newsweek list is arbitrary.
Read More…