Parlor Wit

Fish Ate Elephant

Alex Budarin, 12/27/07

What They Said in 2000

Politicians say lots of things in their campaign speeches. You expect them to give a list of reasons why they would be better than their opponent. So, when George W. Bush became the Republican nominee for President in 2000, it was not surprising that he would declare in his acceptance speech all the ways that he would be a better President than Al Gore. No, the surprising part is how ironically things turned out.

Look at some of the things W said when he got the GOP nomination in 2000:

• We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence. Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, "Not ready for duty, sir." This administration had its moment, they had their chance, they have not led. We will.

• Our generation has a chance to reclaim some essential values, to show we have grown up before we grow old. But when the moment for leadership came, this administration did not teach our children, it disillusioned them. They had their chance. They have not led. We will.

• A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam: When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming.

• I believe in tolerance, not in spite of my faith, but because of it. I believe in a God who calls us not to judge our neighbors but to love them.

• That background may lack the polish of Washington. Then again, I don't have a lot of things that come with Washington. I don't have enemies to fight. I have no stake in the bitter arguments of the last few years. I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect.

• After all of the shouting and all of the scandal, after all the bitterness and broken faith, we can begin again.

• So when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of our land, I will swear to uphold the honor and dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God.

And there was also this ironic observation by Dick Cheney when he accepted the Republican nomination for Vice-President in 2000:

• In Washington today, politics has become war by other means, an endless onslaught of accusation.

Considering these words after 7 years of their mis-administration, I have to give them their due. Heckuva job, Dick and W! Mission Accomplished!

What’s the Big Idea?

At the end of The Argument [Penguin Press, 2007], Matt Bai summarizes a speech made by Mario Cuomo, the former governor of New York, concerning successful election campaigns. Governor Cuomo reportedly observed that campaign issues are “too myriad and complex for voters to sort through and weigh.” The answer “was not that you build the best voter turnout machine you can afford, or that you bring in a linguist to calibrate your message,” but rather that “You seize the biggest idea that you can, the biggest idea that you can understand,” because “this is what moves elections.” Examples of big campaign ideas given by Governor Cuomo reportedly included “Holiness and Cleanliness in Government” [Carter], “Supply-side Economics” [Reagan], “Cold War Showdown” [Reagan], “The Upheaval in the Economy” [Clinton], and “War on Terror” [Bush II].

Then, says Matt, Governor Cuomo asked what Democrats would offer as the “big idea” for the 2008 election. Governor Cuomo believed that “Iraq” was the “big idea” in 2006, but he didn’t believe it would stick around, and he called issues like minimum wage and prescription drug prices “very timid proposals”. Apparently he came closest to proposing “big ideas” when he lamented that Democrats had not cared to use “healthcare” or “the economy” as their “big idea” in 2004.

I don’t believe that big ideas about “healthcare” or “the economy” would have won the Presidency for John Kerry in 2004, but I think that Governor Cuomo’s observation about the campaign value of a “big idea” is sound. Considering the 2000 Presidential election, I was frankly shocked to hear friends state that they were voting for Bush because Gore was part of the “immoral” Clinton administration. But what was the “big idea” of the Bush campaign? That George W. Bush would restore “Honor and Dignity” to the White House.

That leads me to a corollary observation: the Big Idea of a campaign has to respond to The Big Problem currently on the minds of the voters. What will be the Big Problem on the minds of voters in October 2008? It could be “The Economy”, if we have a recession. It could be “Healthcare”, if substantially more Americans can’t afford it. But I think what voters see as the Big Problem is “The Incompetence” of the faith-based Bush administration. So here’s my “Big Idea” suggestion for Democratic campaigns in 2008: “Competent, Real-World Management”.

The Progressive “Vision”

One of Matt Bai’s observations in his book, The Argument, is the seeming lack of an overall progressive vision that we can hold up as the reason for fellow Americans to support our movement. Here’s the vision I would propose:

A secular, pragmatic government held strictly accountable for the common good of all members of the national community, regardless of their race, color, sex, religious beliefs, national origin, sexual orientation, economic status or political persuasion.

Parlor Wit

"Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. today that Baghdad is cooperating or, to put it in terms that Fox News viewers can understand, Hans Blix told the U.N. today that Baghdad is not cooperating." —Bill Maher
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/foxnews/a/foxnewsjokes_2.htm

Authoritarian Media, Democratic Media

Matt Bai’s book, The Argument [Penguin Press, 2007], is truly thought-provoking. Reading it reminded me of the recurring arguments between Internet bloggers and various “pundits”, those opinion-givers who appear in traditional media, such as David Brooks. There is, one may say, a mutual disrespect. It occurred to me that their arguments reflect a critical difference between the media they represent.

Institutional media, such as newspapers and television, are essentially controlled by corporations and governments. That means corporations and governments get to determine the subjects their media will address, the messages they will convey, and the way these subjects and messages will be distributed. For this reason, institutional media are inherently authoritarian. They may say they are ultimately controlled by the public, but that is, at best, a half-truth. If you want institutional media to alter their decisions, you pressure their advertisers or sponsors. They have to listen to their advertisers and sponsors, because their advertisers and sponsors are directly responsible for paying the bills. That’s why I would argue that they are essentially controlled by corporations and governments.

By contrast, the Internet is inherently a “democratic” medium. As long as governments and corporations can’t or don’t control Internet subjects, messages and distribution, members of the public can directly share information, opinion and art with anyone they wish. Encryption is available, if necessary. It reminds me of the “samizdat” which existed in the Soviet Union. The “samizdat” was a clandestine method of distribution that writers and artists in the Soviet Union used to “publish” work that would not be distributed by the institutional media of the Soviet state. Writers would give typed or handwritten copies of their work to friends, who would make more copies and pass them along to their friends. As I see it, the Internet is currently a high-tech “samizdat”. If you want to eliminate the Internet’s democratic nature, just give corporations or governments the means and authority to control its subjects, messages and distribution network.

Our Ahab-In-Chief

How like Captain Ahab is our Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush. Ignoring all counsel, all protests, and all misadventures, he drives on, obsessed with the quest of his White Whale.

What is his White Whale? He calls it “Terror”. It’s not a specific terrorist group. It is “Terror”. His pursuit of it is a “Global War”. For when “Terror” burned the World Trade Center it figuratively scarred his face and chewed on his leg. Now it must be hunted down and slain, regardless of the cost to our Ship of State and to the lives of those who depend upon it.

And there have been costs, dear costs:

• Thousands of our soldiers have lost their lives, and thousands more have grievous wounds.
• Millions of innocent civilians have been killed, injured, and forced to flee their homes.
• Our military has been ground down, to the point that its readiness has been compromised.
• Our financial future has been gambled, to the point that our currency is worth less and less.
• The price of oil has skyrocketed, and remains at the mercy of mostly hostile foreign powers.

For all of this, his “Terror” has not been eliminated. So our Ahab-in-Chief insists we stay the course. He demands continued funding, its use to be subject to his whim. He demands respect for his captaincy, to the sacrifice of all restraint and reason, even though he has shown poor judgment time and again. It’s not “defeatist” to say this will lead to ruin. It is prophecy based on bitter experience.

Alex Budarin

Parlor Wit

Peace On Earth,
Goodwill Toward Men!
from: George W. Bush and Richard Cheney