Society
Roger L. Simon on pathological politics: “Possibly the primary reason I am no longer an adherent of traditional party politics is that both the Democratic and Republican Parties are dominated by a hatred of the other that seems pathological to me”. Link courtesy of Heretical Ideas.
On a related note, I've been listening to the Books on Tape version of Joseph J. Ellis' Founding Brothers. One of things the book focuses on is the bitter (Ellis calls them "scatalogical") partisan politics of the 1790s, when the two-party system first emerged. Both sides commonly referred to the other as "traitors" to the legacy of the revolution. It's worth noting that getting down and dirty did very little for the participants' reputations; Alexander Hamilton, in particular, lost a good deal of his influence and prestige (as well as seriously damaging the Federalist party) after a vicious attack on John Adams in the election of 1800. Adams had already been suffering from the Republican opposition led by Jefferson, who just happened to also be his Vice President. Yet Adams was the only one of the revolutionary participants able to rise above partisan bickering by concluding an unpopular treaty with France that effectively ended an undeclared state of war in 1799. It doomed his chances of being re-elected in 1800; but it was a brilliant piece of policy-making that allowed the nascent republic to gain a breathing space of a few more years in which to solidify its institutions before engaging a foreign power.
Would any of our leading politicians today sacrifice their careers in order to pass an unpopular but necessary measure?
I've read a number of comments in the last few days that the 2004 campaign will be dirtiest in recent history. The recent sniping at Wesley Clark seems to be a harbinger of things to come. While it may not be as vicious as the 1796 and 1800 elections, the caliber of those engaged can hardly be said to equal the real “Greatest Generation”.
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
Sunday, September 21, 2003
Life - Snowballs in Paradise
Summer is almost officially over, but it was over 80 today in beautiful Santa Cruz. I think it's just the continuation of a strange weather pattern this year, but it's a little odd. The Amaryllis are still blooming weeks after they're usually gone, and there still seems to be a pretty good number of tourists 3 weekends after Labor Day. The only real sign I've seen of fall is that the surf seems to have gotten heavier in the past 2 weeks, although it was a little milder today. Both dogs have gotten knocked over by big waves the last two weekends, which is a little scary; Greyhounds aren't exactly built for battling the waves.
Life has a mildly hallucinogenic quality here under any circumstances, but the heat seems to make everything even slower and dreamier. I'm driving down Soquel Avenue yesterday, just past the Harley Davidson dealership/museum on the corner of Seabright, with a guy on a Harley in front of me. I look across the street and see a 9 or 10 year-old kid taking aim at the motorcyclist. With a snowball. He throws it well behind the Harley - the rider doesn't even notice - and runs away. There's a flea market going on the next corner down and people are walking down the street on my side, but nobody else seems to see this but me.
Now, where do you get a snowball on a hot day in Santa Cruz? Come to think of it, where do you get a snowball on any day in Santa Cruz?
Summer is almost officially over, but it was over 80 today in beautiful Santa Cruz. I think it's just the continuation of a strange weather pattern this year, but it's a little odd. The Amaryllis are still blooming weeks after they're usually gone, and there still seems to be a pretty good number of tourists 3 weekends after Labor Day. The only real sign I've seen of fall is that the surf seems to have gotten heavier in the past 2 weeks, although it was a little milder today. Both dogs have gotten knocked over by big waves the last two weekends, which is a little scary; Greyhounds aren't exactly built for battling the waves.
Life has a mildly hallucinogenic quality here under any circumstances, but the heat seems to make everything even slower and dreamier. I'm driving down Soquel Avenue yesterday, just past the Harley Davidson dealership/museum on the corner of Seabright, with a guy on a Harley in front of me. I look across the street and see a 9 or 10 year-old kid taking aim at the motorcyclist. With a snowball. He throws it well behind the Harley - the rider doesn't even notice - and runs away. There's a flea market going on the next corner down and people are walking down the street on my side, but nobody else seems to see this but me.
Now, where do you get a snowball on a hot day in Santa Cruz? Come to think of it, where do you get a snowball on any day in Santa Cruz?
Politics - The Administration's Spin Cycle Never Stops
So the National Security Advisor, the Secretary of Defense, and now the President have all gone on record acknowledging that there was no link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and 9/11, apparently in an effort to spin some earlier comments made by the Vice President about ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune asks: “So why do seven in 10 Americans believe there is a link? Is it just their wild imaginings? Nope: It's because the White House planted the idea and has cultivated it assiduously for months”. Read the whole editorial here.
But they never actually came out and said it. They may have implied it in every way possible, and there seems to have been no shortage of off-the-record suggestions that Saddam and Al Qaeda were intimately involved. But the right level of plausable deniability was maintained.
Robert Scheer writes: “The pattern is clear: Say what you want people to believe for the front page and on TV, then whisper a halfhearted correction or apology that slips under the radar. It is really quite ingenious in its cynical effectiveness”. I don't agree with the rest of Scheer's article, but he gets this point exactly right.
This doesn't just apply to Iraq. Take tax cuts, for instance. Spinsanity debunks the latest spin on this topic. Take WMD's. Oh, but we're still looking for those.
So the question I have is this: When does a pattern of constant manipulation and dissembling in the media come to be regarded as fundamentally dishonest? Where's the dividing line between doctoring the spin and lying?
So the National Security Advisor, the Secretary of Defense, and now the President have all gone on record acknowledging that there was no link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and 9/11, apparently in an effort to spin some earlier comments made by the Vice President about ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune asks: “So why do seven in 10 Americans believe there is a link? Is it just their wild imaginings? Nope: It's because the White House planted the idea and has cultivated it assiduously for months”. Read the whole editorial here.
But they never actually came out and said it. They may have implied it in every way possible, and there seems to have been no shortage of off-the-record suggestions that Saddam and Al Qaeda were intimately involved. But the right level of plausable deniability was maintained.
Robert Scheer writes: “The pattern is clear: Say what you want people to believe for the front page and on TV, then whisper a halfhearted correction or apology that slips under the radar. It is really quite ingenious in its cynical effectiveness”. I don't agree with the rest of Scheer's article, but he gets this point exactly right.
This doesn't just apply to Iraq. Take tax cuts, for instance. Spinsanity debunks the latest spin on this topic. Take WMD's. Oh, but we're still looking for those.
So the question I have is this: When does a pattern of constant manipulation and dissembling in the media come to be regarded as fundamentally dishonest? Where's the dividing line between doctoring the spin and lying?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
