In politics, sometimes winning is losing and losing is winning. Nowhere is that more provably true than in the ideological media outlets and think tanks located in DC and New York.
“What’s bad for the country,”Victor Navasky (publisher emeritus of The Nation) famously says, “is good for the Nation.”
It seems to be true that liberal publications prosper during times of Republican governance. In 2005, The Guardian noted, “The trauma of September 11 2001 and the divisiveness of the Iraq war have fuelled a near-doubling of the Nation’s circulation towards 200,000 since George W Bush took office.”
The Bush years were an incredible period of growth for overtly liberal blogosphere and media outlets. Conversely, conservative groups and center-right media outlets seem to have an easier time when Republicans are out of power.
Donors, investors, and readers tend to become fat and happy when “their side” is winning. But they quickly become more energetic when they lose power.
The Daily Caller has only been around for a couple of years, so it’s unclear whether “what’s bad for the country is good for The Caller.” But one can imagine an Obama second term would yield plenty of opportunities for breaking news. If history is any predictor, the potential for second-term scandal could make “Fast and Furious” look tame by comparison.
What is more, a Romney loss would surely spawn one of the most interesting presidential primary races in history.
One could imagine that as early as spring of 2013, ambitious candidates like Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, et al., might begin jockeying for position by tapping strategists to help them “explore” a possible presidential bid.
The Bush-era book, “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” was ostensibly about Americans who vote against their own self interest. But if you want to see a prime example of people who root against their own personal welfare, look no further than the writers who work for ideological media outlets.