Posted By Daniel W. Drezner
Thursday, October 14, 2010 - 1:43 PM
Share
Earlier this week Politico's Ben Smith posted about the ways in which speaking fees had altered incentives for politicians and pundits:
Most of the people you see talking on television or quoted in stories -- who aren't in elected office -- make substantial parts of their livings giving speeches to private groups. Paid speaking, cleaner than lobbying, easier than the practice of law, cleaner than hitting up pension funds, well, safer than graft, has become the primary source of income for a broad range of political figures, beginning with Bill Clinton, who reported $7.5 million from paid speech in 2009.
The high fees for speakers like Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Stanley McChrystal occasionally draw attention, but beneath them are tiers and tiers more, with Harold Ford and Michael Steele, for instance, charging $40,000 for a package deal.
In that middle tier are commentators like Coulter and high-profile television personalities. Well down the ladder are journalists, lower-profile politicians, and consultants.
I've been wondering -- and am interested in readers' takes, particularly those in the industry -- how this private economy affects the public politics. For one thing, it provides an incentive for consultants and out-of-work politicians to volunteer themselves to cable television and to make themselves interested and controversial enough to stay on it. (It's a kind of subsidy to cable.) Cable hits are a kind of loss leader on the speaking circuit -- they don't themselves play, but they make a paid speaker more saleable.
In a follow-up post, Smith relayed a media exec's thoughts on the matter:
[I]t's never discussed with any real scrutiny by the mainstream media or Fox because it's bi-partisan. Everyone does it! James Carville. Bill Maher. Hannity. Oliver North. Eugene Robinson. Al Sharpton. Jack Welch. Trent Lott.
Note that academics are so far down the ladder that Smith doesn't even bother to mention them. This does not mean, however, that academics and other members of the foreign-policy community don't get speaking fees. I've seen Fareed Zakaria's quote, and, well, let's just say I've been coping with my own inadequacies at the lectern ever since.
What does the foreign policy equivalent of Smith's speaker ecosystem -- and how does it affect our analysis?
Well, the foreign policy speaker ecosystem is pretty straightforward and pretty hierarchical:
1) Top tier: former policy principals and mainstream elite pundits. Examples: Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Tom Friedman, Fareed Zakaria, Robert Kagan, etc. These are the people that large associations, private colleges, and consultants with deep pockets will invite to give talks. Payment ranges from high-five figures to low-six figures.
2) Second tier: Senior think-tankers, former policymakers with views "outside the mainstream", and experts in the topic du jour: Examples: Richard Haass, Carlos Pascual, James Woolsey, and, say, Barnett Rubin if Afghanistan was on everyone's mind. College groups, professional associations, lobbies, and single-issue groups will have these people talk. Payment ranges from high-four figures to middle-five figures.
3) Third tier: Top tier IR academics, former deputy policymakers, consultants who fancy themselves as deep global strategists, one-shot book-publishing wonders, etc. Examples: Charles Kupchan, Strobe Talbott, Parag Khanna. Foundations, think tanks, some campus groups, and university institutes will invite these speakers. Fees are generally low four figures.
4) Fourth tier: Assorted crackpots, garden-variety think-tankers, A-list bloggers, and me. Travel, hotel, and something less than $1,000.
Does this hierarchy affect how foreign-policy analysts write and think? I'm honestly not sure. Cracking the top tier is very difficult, and someone gearing their entire intellectual output towards that goal is more likely to be disappointed than not. Forthermore, the best way to crack that tier is to achieve a related goal, which is a top-tier appointment in an administration. One could argue that this puts constraints on how far outside "mainstream" analysis one can go.
On the other hand… once one realizes that those A-list appontments ain't going to happen, the incentve structure shifts. After a certain point, becoming an intellectual bomb-thrower can be the quickest route to achieving pecuniary rewards. That said, even in this case one has to have done good work in the past in order to be taken seriously. So, in the foreign-policy ecosystem at least, I'm not sure speaking fees distort policy analysis all that much.
I'm eager to hear from commenters on this question, however: do you think the growth of outside speaking fees distort incentives within the foreign-policy community?
Michael Loccisano/Getty Images
No idea, but I'm wondering if the incentives operate more for the people actually in important positions, particularly since they can also usually parley that into a book deal.
4) Fourth tier: Assorted crackpots, garden-variety think-tankers, A-list bloggers, and me. Travel, hotel, and something less than $1,000.
Hey, free hotel! I'll go give IR speeches if it means I get a couple of free nights in a Holiday Inn, plus travel fare to a place that I can then do some sight-seeing at.
I think for the top-tier, it is not really about what they say so much as the 'celebrity' of the speaker. I don't think it distorts much there.
Interesting that I could get Colin Powell to speak for probably one-fifth of what Jennifer Lopez would get.
I think you make a mistake in portraying tier four as a catch all. It's actually very hard to break in to. And I think it compels scholars to stick to the mainstream of the foreign policy establishment. Clear views yes but only if they fit within the parameters of acceptable debate.
Interestingly, you didn't name anyone in any category who could be fairly labelled a dissenter.
Maybe anyone with extreme views, outside the mainstream, would jump that level because they are more likely to make TV appearances, which instantly increases their visibility and 'brand power'. I dont know though.
Tier 4.5 includes scholars who like driving to speeches since they can cash the travel money rather than pay for a plane ticket.... Not that I know anything about that.
Am I supposed to be impressed? Sympathetic? Disdainful?
So you're bummed because you're not realing in the big bucks on the rubber chicken circuit?
.
Or is it that you feel your supposed contribution to US foreign policy is not being heeded because, you're only an IR professor and therefore can't do the equivelent of an arena rock tour?
.
Is it elitism? You're supposed to be smarter than those TV personalities and therefore should have greater exposure and subsequently lucre, than Ann Coulter, Sarah Pailin?
.
I guess given the society's penchent for entertainment, the 'bomb thrower' route works. I mean hey, it worked for Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. Prior to their version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, nobody outside academia even knew they existed. Now, they're the rock stars of the anti-Semitic crowd. According to Forbes magazine, Glen Beck is pulling in close to $50 million from his various media (I won't even try to guage the Howard Stern levels), but look at John Stewart. He not only has the big bucks, but an attentive audiance, and he's literally, a card-carrying comedian (cue the George Carlin joke).
.
That said, the real movers will listen to those who provide true analysis and wisdom. Noriel Rabbani gets published on Foreign Policy not because of his antics or 'bomb throwing', but his research. Same thing for Nial Fergusson.
.
As for some of those A-listers you mention, they put their time in the trenches. Tom Friedman earned his stripes in Beruit during the 1980's Lebanese Civil War.
,
As the old saying goes, "No Guts, No Glory". Put in the sweat equity, develop good analysis and ideas, and put yourself in a position where that knowledge makes a difference.
.
Of course, all that surmises that life as a professor at Tufts university is beneath you. One would think that as a professor, your primary goal would be your two or three semester long speaking engagement to your students who spend upwards of $50,000 a year for the privelage of gleaning the wisdom of their teachers. But hey, who cares about teaching, that's what the TA's are for, and you can check in by blackberry or i-Pad while hanging out with the likes of Colin, Condi, and Fareed.
Pretty sure you missed the point
Drezner was asking if speaking fees distorted the analysis of those who received the money. I could not find a single reference to him feeling left out or 'bummed' he is not in the top tier.
Anyways, he deserves whatever he gets. I used him as a reference in one of my papers recently and got a high grade. I am certain there is a link.
No, I think I was spot on with my comments
The question Dan raised was "Does this hierarchy affect how foreign-policy analysts write and think?"
.
He then went on to point out how people like himself, IR professors, are at the bottom of the food chain, and that if one was to improve their 'standing' so to speak, a good way was to become a 'bomb thrower', since high level goverment positions were a long-shot lottery ticket to the A list.
.
Given that the so-called 'big bucks' were above the supposed rational IR professors level, it seems that there is incentive for intelligent people to toss bombs, in hopes of generating a following, getting public recognition, hopefully building to a greater payday.
.
Hence, the question over what they write and think.
.
My point is that those in power still take seriously the focused experts who have worthwhile knowledge and wisdom.
.
My second point is that if you're after the 'big bucks', then perhaps you need to re-evaluate your chosen path in life. Dan is a college professor, a respected position, and often well paying for those who succeed in their chosen field. The idea that Dan's 'job' should be subverted because he could earn more by 'bomb throwing' and speaking, points to a certain disrespect towards both his chosen profession and even more importantly, the paying customers, who invest both serious dollars and hours because of what he says in his regular 'speaking gig'.
.
If that's the case, then Dan should get out of academia, lob some bombs, and be considered intellectually what other pundits are. No shame in that, and perhaps the pay and lifestyle is better. But to bemoan your 'fate' and claim that you need to adjust your own thinking seems somewhat unethical. Maybe that's a quesiton Dan could send to Randy Cohen at the New York Times for his column.
In James Fallows' book, Reporting the News, he discusses the same phenomenon and poses the same question when it came to journalistic integrity. The situation was similar and the problems, they seemed, the same. How does one report the news to the public without seemingly compromise their journalistic integrity when they were on the public speaking circuit?
Of course, you discuss the pundits, and their main resource of revenue is not disputable in our discussion. However, for those foreign policy analysts and those who used to work in the government, the dilemma seems to be graver.
Fallows' argument is convincing in showing the reader that their is -- if not a definitive compromise in one's own independence in analysis -- some sort of undermining of one's own natural viewpoint when one does engage in the public speaking circuit. It is not it being the source of extra income either as well, but numerous other factors involved in the equation that perpetuate one's compromise in their analysis, speech, and scholarly behavior.
I don't present an argument, but think Fallows' book is worth reading (or re-reading if the poster has read it). It seems numerous politicians and former government officials turn to the media for their extra income now; in addition to the speaking tour.
I was offered £100 to go on Press TV. I turned it down. I'd like to think my soul is worth more than that.... even if it would have got me a nice pair of shoes.
For the most part, I'll speak for a train ticket and some hors d'oeuvres.
The key point of the piece Dan quotes here is the one about public figures making "substantial parts of their livings" from public appearances.
Of course that's going to degrade the quality of their contribution to foreign policy analysis. People who speak once in a while can afford to think and say anything they want. People who speak often enough to generate a significant income stream become dependent upon it to support their lifestyle. To keep the offers coming in, they will do what they have to.
This applies less to the figures at the top of the public speaker food chain, for whom the issue is more one of seemliness -- as with former President Clinton cashing in on his public service, or Sarah Palin cashing in on her celebrity. Speakers like this will always be able to haul in more money than they can use no matter what they say. Everyone else, though, is bound to feel constrained to avoid saying things likely to reduce their income and to emphasize points paying audiences want to hear.
Moreover, the opportunity to make large sums of money outside government reduces the incentive to serve in government. Speaking fees are probably not the biggest factor in reducing the economic appeal of government service, but they have to be a factor for some people. Now, it is perfectly true that most people don't do everything they do for money, but if all the economic incentives point in one direction, you have to expect consequences to flow from that.
Zarthas, I really have to question the idea that people need to
watch what they say so that they don't lose out on a 'payday'.
.
Do you really think Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck concern themselves as to what they say so that they don't lose out on more money?!?
.
Same thing for John Stewart or Fareed Zakariah.
.
Just who are we talking about here for the payday gig. Top White House staffers? Look at George Stephanapolous, Bernard Reich, Larry Summers, Bob Rubin, think anyone won't listen to them if their views are, what? Moderated? pushed to an extreme?
.
Do you really think that Karl Rove wakes up at night thinking "WOW! I need to move to the left on this issue because people won't come to hear me speak?"
.
Or by contrast do you think that Al Gore wakes up and says, hey, you know, this global warming thing, not so bad, but I'll be dammed if I back down on it because my speaking engagement fees are going to go from $100-k to only $50-k.
.
Somebody needs to point to some real world examples here, because otherwise, its little more than an academic exercise in payday navel gazing.
As I said, speakers at the top of the food chain can haul in more money than they can use no matter what they say. Also, speakers like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are, at most, marginally relevant to this discussion, since they do no analysis. If they weren't telling their audiences what they wanted to hear, they'd have nothing to say.
Karl Rove is an interesting case. Obviously, his appeal for many organizations needing a speaker is related to the expectation that he will tell them what they want to hear. However, he's a campaign politics professional; he's expected to offer analysis of activities in his field of expertise, and his reputation depends in large part on that analysis being on the money. Would he hedge his analysis if it looked as if it might offend a potentially lucrative audience?
After Christine O'Donnell won the Republican nomination for the Delaware Senate seat, Rove went on Fox to express his strong view that O'Donnell was unelectable this November. In the world of campaign analysts, this is an uncontroversial view; Delaware Republicans' train has clearly stopped at Bimbo Junction with this nomination. The Tea Party crowd, however, went ballistic. Within barely 24 hours, Rove reversed himself, saying he was sure O'Donnell could win. Now, one case doesn't prove anything, and this case doesn't involve foreign or national security policy. The incentives seem to head in the same direction generally, though.
That there is a difference between those who are truly appreciated by those in office vs. the entertainment factor.
.
People who go to someone like Noriel Roubani, go to listen to what he says because they're interested in what he says. It's the expertise that counts.
.
So too with people like Rove because as you point out, they're political analysts. Cheerleaders are a dime a dozen, but quality work will always stand out.
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(14)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE