Michelle Malkins Obamas Layoff Bomb - Article Example

Section/# The Trouble with Statistics: An Article Refutation of Michelle Malkin’s “Obama’s Layoff Bomb” The problem with using statistics to prove a point is that many individuals, Michelle Malkin included, measure them over a period of time that best helps prove their central thesis, relies on odd measurement data, and seeks to draw inference where none would otherwise exist. This is very much demonstrated in Michelle Malkin’s piece “Obama’s Layoff Bomb”. This brief refutation piece will seek to lay out some of the reasons why Malkin’s piece falls short as well as specifically engage and refute key points that are salaciously put forward by her. It bears emphasis that the title of the piece as well as the timing in which it has come to light is of key importance to the understanding and analysis of the motives behind it. For those that are unfamiliar, Michelle Malkin is a conservative pundit that represents the extreme far right of the Republican Party. As an Asian American woman, she seeks to give a distinct ethnic flavor to a party that has previously been viewed as male, pale, and Yale. As a partisan critic, Malkin makes her money on being a polemic. Regardless of the virtue of the Democratic stance on a particular issue or the honest nature in which the current president makes a decision, Malkin’s readership have come to expect negativity on such topics as this is what helps her to pay the bills and provides such a rabid fan base as she enjoys among extreme elements of the conservative right in the United States. With this in mind, Malkin’s article begins with a snarky headline and image that depicts President Obama in the attire of the grim reaper. Furthermore, the headline makes a strong allusion to the flap that had earlier enraptured extreme elements of the conservative party regarding Obama’s religious nature. The article is entitled “Obama’s Layoff Bomb”. As such, the title itself and imagery that is denoted is already inflammatory prior to the reader even beginning on to the content of the article. Similarly, the article goes on to relate how Malkin’s “analysis” of BLS (Bureau of Labor and Statistics) information has led her to the firm conclusion that there will be an imminent layoff bubble which will burst very soon after the election (not surprisingly especially if Barak Obama were to be elected for a second term). Although the article itself expresses the claim of objectivity in the research, it is clear from even a cursory review that no such objectivity is included. Malkin’s rubric centers around the following flawed perceptions of the economy, BLS information, and the strong/innate belief that the Democratic party and liberalism specifically is responsible for nearly all of the ills of current society (Malkin 1). Firstly, with respect to Malkin’s use of BLS data to prove a point, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that the economy of the United States has been and a marked improvement since the second quarter of 2008 in nearly every imaginable financial metric and indicator. This has been proven by increase in new home sales, low inflation rates, the positive affects that QE1,2 have had on economic growth, and the general decrease in unemployment figures. Although the economy is still decidedly weak, it is shortsighted and narrow-minded to offer up a view that merely because a slight decrease over the past month in the number of job cuts in firms precipitates a coming avalanche of job cuts if/when Barak Obama is re-elected to the office of President of the United States. Furthermore, such an approach does not factor in the cyclical nature of the employment sector within the United States economy. Although figures rise and fall on a host of global, domestic, and regional factors, there remain significant and measurable trends with relation to overall employment and layoff statistics that transcend the presidential election. Although this is no doubt a factor to a certain subset of employers, who wins the election is of little value to the businessmen if the economy is continuing to improve or showing signs that a greater improvement is in store. In this way, Malkin not only mis-represents the data, choosing only to show a very brief time span which distorts the general trend, as well as making a false assumption that businessmen’s primary concern is what party wins the Presidential election. However, the article continues and cites specific examples of firms that have suffered layoffs supposedly as a direct result of Obama’s policies. Although it is not the intention of this author to get into a mudslinging context with Malkin or agree or disagree that Obama’s policies have been either helpful or hurtful to the economy as a whole, it is without question that the methods by which Malkin measures Obama’s success as well as the cherry picked examples that she uses to drive her point home only serves to weaken the legitimacy and/or rigor of her case. Although this author would not be categorically against a widespread policy analysis of what things the president has gotten wrong and what things he has gotten right, targeting him on the basis of dislike and disagreement within the framework that every action and pretext that he takes is somehow invariably corrupt and/or flawed is not an even examination of the topic at hand. Lastly, Malkin veers off into uncharted and unspecified territory by accusing the administration of suppressing vital unemployment statistics by bribing and corrupting key shareholders in the process. In this sense, it is impossible for Malkin to have her cake and eat it too. Either the employment data that she referenced early on the in the analysis proves that the economy is indeed improving and the president’s plans have helped in alleviating the economic distress that was first evidenced as early as 2007, or the opposite (which she proffers) is true. However, by relying on the BLS statistics, Malkin gives them credence; however, when they do not prove her point to the extent that she desires she reverts into a conspiratorial tone and accuses the president and his supporters of simply cooking the books. This author is not against an analysis of the statistics; however, for purposes of this particular article, the statistics that were presented were not only cherry-picked to make the president look bad in every conceivable way, faulty and incomplete information was referenced with regards to the way in which the data corresponded to the trends that the author supposedly noted. Although a rigorous statistical analysis that relies on a broad range of information is helpful in determining the overall benefits of given policy mechanisms, such a narrow, slanted, and specifically chosen analysis as the one which has been performed by Malkin does not assist one in reasonably understanding the situation whatsoever. Work Cited Malkin, Michelle. "Lead Story." Michelle Malkin. N.p., 31 Oct. 2012. Web. 01 Nov. 2012. . Read More