It’s a goal Obama talked about quite a bit while on the campaign trail, as did McCain. Obama is not unique in having paid lip service to bipartisanship when it was of benefit to him during the election and then dumping it when he didn’t need it to pass some of the most polarizing—and partisan—legislation in history. That’s politics, folks.
But surprise surprise, I’m going to defend Obama for his failure to be bipartisan. The generalized yearning for bipartisanship has always reminded me of the old Rodney King plea, “Why can’t we all just get along?” The answer is—“because we can’t, that’s why.” And that failure is—to coin a phrase—a bipartisan one.
If we could agree, we would. The fact that we don’t is a reflection of the reality that goals differ, and that even when they are the same there is disagreement on what course to take to best reach them.
People sometimes say there’s no difference between the two parties because all politicians are crooks, hypocrites, liars, and self-serving cheats—and the people who say that have a point. But politicians from different parties are a different flavor of crooks, hypocrites, liars, and self-serving cheats, as well as including a smattering of upstanding public servants. Depending on which party is in power at any moment, we are going to see different laws and different policies, with different results.
One would hope that, in the current financial crisis, we would all be able to pull together in a bipartisan way to make things better for everyone. That would be great, if it weren’t for two things: (a) most politicians see crisis as an opportunity to solidify their power and the power of their respective parties; and (2) in the present case, most politicians disagree on the seriousness of the crisis, its causes, and what approach will improve matters. Those are very real differences that are not easily resolved by chanting “bipartisanship” as a mantra.
Most of the bipartisanship in American history has occurred either on trivial issues, or in the passing of bills that nobody ended up liking (McCain-Feingold, anyone?), or in times of defense after a clear and unprovoked attack (Pearl Harbor, immediate post-9/11).
Otherwise, as they say in Brooklyn—faggetaboutit.
[NOTE: Bipartisanship is different from the law of thirds. The latter is simply the principle that if either party goes too far off center in its grab for power and influence, it may alienate the moderate American middle and lose the next election. That is, of course, unless they change the rules in order to further entrench their power, or control the airwaves and print media to such an extent that they control the message. Hmmm.]
I don’t know why I bother with the AP anymore. Maybe it’s because their articles permeate most of the newspapers in the country, and become the reality for so many readers.
Iraq’s restored National Museum reopened Monday with a red-carpet gala in the heart of Baghdad nearly six years after looters carried away priceless antiquities as American troops largely stood by in the chaos of the city’s fall to U.S. forces.
The ransacking of the museum became a symbol for critics of Washington’s post-invasion strategy and its inability to maintain order as Saddam Hussein’s police and military unraveled…
Once the home of one of the world’s leading collections of artifacts, the museum fell victim to bands of armed thieves who rampaged through the capital after the Americans captured Baghdad in April 2003.
It was among many institutions looted across Iraq, including universities, hospitals and cultural offices. But the richness of the museum’s collection ”” and its importance as the caretaker of Iraq’s historical identity ”” led to an outcry around the world.
U.S. troops, the sole power in the city at the time, were intensely criticized for not protecting the treasures at the museum and other cultural institutions like the national library and the Saddam Art Center, a museum of modern Iraqi art.
It goes on. And on. And every word of it is true—and misleading.
It’s not till paragraph fifteen that we find a tiny mention of exculpating evidence:
It could have been worse. Iraqi officials closed the museum several weeks before the U.S.-led invasion and hid some particularly important artifacts at secret locations to prevent their theft.
But still, a person could read the entire article without ever learning that (a) a very tiny percentage of the artifacts were stolen; and (b) many of the thefts were inside jobs that probably occurred before the Americans even got there.
The extent of the looting of Iraq’s National Museum has been disputed. News organizations for weeks reported that as much as 100 percent of the museum’s 170,000 catalogued lots (501,000 pieces) had been looted, when no more than 3 percent of the artifacts in fact were removed, and perhaps only 1 percent of them stolen by outside looters…About 15,000 of the museum’s 501,000 artifacts were stolen, and about two-thirds of the missing pieces probably were taken in an inside job before American troops arrived. About 5,000 pieces, most of them tiny beads and amulets, were taken by looters. According to The Washington Post (Sept. 15, 2003), investigator Col. Matthew Bogdanos estimated that most of the looted items could have fit into one large backpack…[T]the number of major pieces removed from the museum’s public gallery was in the dozens.
Yacoub and the AP either don’t know these facts, or they are well aware of them and have carefully crafted the article to mislead (read: lie) by omission. A reader who remembers the original reports of utter museum devastation could read the new article and continue to believe that this was the case. Nice going, AP!
In Alter’s cover story about Obama entitled “America’s New Shrink,” Alter tells us don’t worry, be happy, even though Obama has utterly failed to perform what even Alter insists is the first job of a president in a peacetime crisis, instilling confidence.
Despite the fact that Alter spends the first page and a half of his article describing the myriad ways in which Obama has failed to do just that for the economy, he still thinks it will happen:
So why do I still think Barack Obama has a good chance of restoring confidence and pulling us back from the brink?…Because my take on Obama, based on conversations with him and his team stretching back more than four years and extending into the White House, is that he has a firm grasp of the psychological and substantive challenges of the presidency.
So Obama’s buddy Alter is willing to ignore the evidence of Obama’s actions as president in favor of Alter’s personal experience of what a smart guy Obama appears to be when schmoozing with the press—and that’s even though the stock market has been falling precipitously since Obama has become president, and particularly every time he proposes a new policy (today, the first day the market has been open since the announcement of the “tax the rich and businesses” plan, is no exception; at the moment we’re down 140 points to the 7220s).
But that’s okay; it’s just not the right time yet for confident optimistic talk, according to Alter:
[Obama] knows that now is not the moment to cheerlead, not when the financial players are lying dazed on the field. There will be time for that, when the banks have been “restructured” (see, that sounds better than “nationalized”) and the credit starts flowing again.
As a “shrink” of sorts myself, I will interject that both leaders—and shrinks—must convey optimism about the long-term picture, and this must be done from the beginning of a crisis.
What’s more, condescension isn’t very helpful. But Alter seems to disagree:
Obama has the chops to sell [his] approach, starting with his already-proven ability to be the nation’s teacher in chief. This was FDR’s secret weapon on the radio, and it can be Obama’s on TV and the Web. He’s the smart, cool instructor, trusted by the class to explain something important even if a little complicated. All that’s lacking is a bit more humor and a few catchphrases to simplify the message.
FDR’s “secret weapon” was not being a teacher. Rather, (although it wasn’t really very secret) it was his buoyant optimism, an attitude that was neither an empty pose nor a strategic ploy but a fundamental part of his personality—perhaps the most fundamental part. FDR’s optimism was both a natural tendency of the man and an attitude accentuated by his hard and personal struggle with polio, and his successful conquering of the despondency that would naturally be faced by most men of action struck down by such a disease in their prime, as FDR was.
The nation understood that Roosevelt was not consdescending to them as “smart, cool, instructor.” Nor was he playing a clever game of timing with his pep talks, being negative at the beginning and positive only when things were already looking up. He was imbuing them with some of the hard-won confidence he’d earned through his own triumphs over adversity.
FDR was a naturally ebullient man; Obama is most decidedly not. Take it from another great, Winston Churchill, who ought to know:
Meeting Franklin Roosevelt was like opening your first bottle of champagne; knowing him was like drinking it.
I can’t quite imagine anyone saying that about Obama; meeting Obama is more like taking some cod liver oil.
Speaking of Churchill—now there was a man who knew who to balance optimism with realism. But he could never be compared to champagne; more like a fine port. Churchill’s optimism, like that of FDR’s was no pose—it was his natural tendency, and his eloquence and delivery guaranteed that he could deliver the message to perfection.
The main thrust of what Churchill told the British people and the world—and he said it right from the start, at the darkest hour; he did not wait for things to get better!—was that even though the way would be incredibly difficult, the Allies would prevail. Intrepid perseverance was his forte, and he was able to transmit his own endurance to the British people, and in the process amplify theirs.
In his very first broadcast after taking office, in May of 1940, Churchill doesn’t mince words about the darkness of the situation facing the Allies. But every passage in which he describes the depth of the peril is followed by a firm affirmation that victory is never in doubt:
We must expect that as soon as stability is reached on the Western Front, the bulk of that hideous apparatus of [German] aggression which gashed Holland into ruin and slavery in a few days will be turned upon us. I am sure I speak for all when I say we are ready to face it; to endure it; and to retaliate against it…
Our task is not only to win the battle—but to win the war. After this battle in France abates its force, there will come the battle for our Island—for all that Britain is, and all the Britain means. That will be the struggle. In that supreme emergency we shall not hesitate to take every step, even the most drastic, to call forth from our people the last ounce and the last inch of effort of which they are capable.
Here is my favorite—and the most famous—part of Churchill’s speech. It occurs towards the end, and is an almost perfect example of Churchill’s ability to convey the depth of the horror facing Europe while at the same time transmitting to his listeners a near-guarantee—by the sheer force of his own will and determination—of their ultimate victory:
[N]ow one bond unites us all—to wage war until victory is won, and never to surrender ourselves to servitude and shame, whatever the cost and the agony may be. This is one of the most awe-striking periods in the long history of France and Britain. It is also beyond doubt the most sublime. Side by side, unaided except by their kith and kin in the great Dominions and by the wide empires which rest beneath their shield—side by side, the British and French peoples have advanced to rescue not only Europe but mankind from the foulest and most soul-destroying tyranny which has ever darkened and stained the pages of history. Behind them—behind us—behind the Armies and Fleets of Britain and France—gather a group of shattered States and bludgeoned races: the Czechs, the Poles, the Norwegians, the Danes, the Dutch, the Belgians—upon all of whom the long night of barbarism will descend, unbroken even by a star of hope, unless we conquer, as conquer we must; as conquer we shall.
[NOTE: I couldn’t find an audio of the above speech of Churchill’s, so I offer the following substitute.]
[ADDENDUM: Commenter AuH2O has kindly led me to the correct You Tube video (the quoted part begins around 1:35):]
[ADDENDUM II: My colleague and friend Shrinkwrapped has a shrink’s take on it all.]
Whaaaa?? you say. But I think we need some lightness for a change. And there’s hardly anything lighter than the Oscars. They nearly levitate with their lack of gravitas—not to mention the hot air of the stars’ pomposity.
Yes, even though I hardly ever watch movies these days, and could hardly care less about the lives of film celebrities, I almost always try to watch the Oscars for one thing: the fashions.
I have no idea who host Hugh Jackman is. But trusty Wikipedia tells me that he’s an Australian star of screen and the musical stage. Jackman played the lead role of Billy Bigelow in a recent production of the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical “Carousel.” So tell me why his singing sounded so ghastly during the opening number that I had to mute the sound?
The usual unctuous, self-congratulatory garbage goes on. Yada yada yada. But as I said, it’s the fashions that interest me.
The following monstrosity made Tinda Winton (who???) look as though she’d been exhumed for the occasion, proving that beige is one of the most difficult colors to wear—especially for those who are somewhat beige and washed-out to begin with:
For a contrast, see Kate Winslet in a classy shade of blue that looks a bit like a moonlit night sky:
Sophia, Sophia, Sophia. Ah, Sophia girl, we’ve got to talk. When I wrote this heartfelt tribute to you a while back, I never could have guessed that you’d betray my trust by turning up as the main character in “Hello Dolly.” But that sad day has come (and the dress is beige, yet):
Beyonce has turned herself into a cross between a divan and a mermaid:
I deserve some sort of special award myself for just attempting to watch this swill. It is far more boring than usual, and that’s saying an awful lot. So far, no video montages of old films either, one of the few things other than the fashions that I usually look forward to.
To top the evening off, Sean Penn just said he’s proud to live in a country that has the (I think the next word was “courage;” not sure though) to elect an elegant man president. Wow.
And now, just when I’d given up—a montage of old films! But unfortunately, the featured film clips are mostly about politics. And some of them aren’t even old. Given those parameters, how did a moment of “The Graduate” sneak in there?
Our new Attorney General, Eric Holder, says we are still a bunch of cowards about race despite all these years of affirmative action, and our brand new African-American president and Attorney General (that would be Mr. Holder himself).
Why? Because we don’t talk enough about race, and because although we might work together, we don’t play together well on weekends.
Holder was speaking at the Justice Department in honor of black history month, February (here is the full text of his speech). He made it clear that, despite all the advances of the last fifty years, there is much more work to be done.
Holder’s attitude is a good example of what I was talking about the other day, that some time ago equality of opportunity ceased to be enough to satisfy liberals and special interest groups, and was replaced by equality of outcome. Now it seems that equality of outcome is not enough either, at least not to Holder—there must be a sort of merging. But at the same time he requires that African-Americans retain a favored status in terms of what is taught in school.
The teaching of history was a big focus of Holder’s speech, one that has been neglected in the attention given the sound bite of his “cowards” remark. This balancing act—merging the races while somehow retaining for blacks a favored status—is a bit tricky, to say the least. Here’s what Holder said about how black studies should be taught:
As a former American history major I am struck by the fact that such a major part of our national story [black history] has been divorced from the whole…For too long we have been too willing to segregate the study of black history. There is clearly a need at present for a device that focuses the attention of the country on the study of the history of its black citizens. But we must endeavor to integrate black history into our culture and into our curriculums in ways in which it has never occurred before so that the study of black history, and a recognition of the contributions of black Americans, become commonplace. But we have to recognize that until black history is included in the standard curriculum in our schools and becomes a regular part of all our lives, it will be viewed as a novelty, relatively unimportant and not as weighty as so called “real” American history.
This is a fascinating point of view that represents a change in ideas about racial justice. I was recently browsing through an old favorite of mine, Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind (1987), and I found a passage that explains the early years of this process so much better than anything I could write that I will just quote him on the subject:
…[A]lmost all the significant leaders [of the early civil rights movement]…relied on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They could charge whites not only with the most monstrous injustices but also with contradicting their own most sacred principles. The blacks were the true Americans in demanding the equality that belongs to them as human beings by natural and political right…They therefore worked through Congress, the Presidency, and, above all, the Judiciary. By contrast, the Black Power movement that supplanted the older civil rights movement…had at its core the view that the Constitutional tradition was always corrupt and was constructed as a defense of slavery. Its demand was for black identity, not universal rights…It insisted on respect for blacks as blacks, not as human beings simply….
The upshot of all this for the education of young Americans is that they know much less about American history and those who were held to be its heroes. This was one of the few things they used to come to college with that had something to do with their lives. Nothing has taken its place except a smattering of facts learned about other nations or cultures and a few social science formulas.
I would add that the teaching of black history has also taken the place of education about the founding fathers as heroes. As part of the mea culpa approach to history that has become even more prevalent in the years since Bloom wrote his book, the clay feet of American heroes are emphasized (in particular, their hypocrisy on racial issues), and the mistreatment of certain groups (native Americans, blacks, Japanese during WWII) is hammered home, as well as their achievements. Witness the fact that one might at times think Harriet Tubman superior in importance and influence to Thomas Jefferson, if amount of coverage in the school curricula were to be your only guide. I’m not asking that the US be treated by history teachers as though it were perfect. But the emphasis has gone too far in the other direction.
But back to Attorney General Holder, who appears to be asking for two contradictory things. If a race-blind society is the ultimate goal—and I think it is for Holder, since he is critiquing even the casual social separation of the races in their weekend activities—then it’s not likely that this could be arrived at by singling out a particular race for special consideration in the study of American history or through the continuance of affirmative action.
This contradictory approach is a thread that ran through President Obama’s campaign as well—the desire to have it both ways. Obama was the post-racial candidate, and his election has proven just how far we have come in this regard. But he also played on his racial identity by mentioning it many times (“I don’t look like the others;” “I have a funny name”), and his followers and associates made it clear that any criticism of Obama was by its very nature racially motivated.
In this piece, Gary Graham gives a good rendering of the problem from a personal point of view. Of course, he’s just a white guy, but let’s listen to him for a moment:
Apparently, I’m a racist coward because I want to be color blind. This great national offense of racism doesn’t want to die – even though we just elected our first black president. Just when you thought it was okay to climb out of the past, to put racial injustice and animosity behind us”¦the Attorney General in the national media yesterday drags it back out…
I don’t believe in Black History Month any more than I believe in White History Month. To me, Black History Month is a complete insult to Blacks. We must prop up an entire race of people, give them special awards, honors, and recognitions, underscoring their accomplishments and achievements and contributions to society, based on their color”¦ as if it’s so truly remarkable that they did it in the first place”¦and are African American to boot? Stop the presses! A black person accomplished something great! As if they couldn’t have done it on their own, without help. As if they are somehow inferior to whites. That they somehow overcame their blackness”¦and did all these wonderful things despite the obvious disadvantage, encumbrance, disability”¦of being a person of color.
Am I the only one in America”¦who finds this the least bit patronizing and insulting”¦and downright, well, racist?
No Gary, you’re not. But I don’t think we’ve reached the point where it’s OK to say so.
Here are some of the details of the mortgage bailout plan. Not good.
Yes, I understand that a huge flood of foreclosures isn’t a good thing either. But this program will probably do little to forestall foreclosures because many homeowners will probably walk away from their obligations anyway and forfeit their homes.
As for those who renegotiate their mortgages under the proposal, its terms almost guarantee that everyone who doesn’t come under its aegis—homeowners and renters alike—will be spitting mad at those who do.
After decades of wandering in the Republican desert (and he includes the Clinton years as a craven accommodation to Republicans), the good guys (liberals) are finally in the driver’s seat where they belong.
But he would be even happier if Barack Obama would declare himself as a proud, big-government liberal—in contrast to those selfish, lying, hypocritical Republicans.
If your health can take it, you should read Wieseltier’s piece because of the light it sheds on the triumphant liberal mindset of today. He is drunk with his Aquarian vision of government on a white horse riding to the rescue.
If this picture requires ignoring or distorting history, so be it. History is messy; belief is beautiful.
How shall I fisk thee, Mr. Wieseltier? Let me count the ways [I will put the Wieseltier quotes in bold; my responses will follow in regular type].
The public has not yet broken the grip of the conservative discourse that has dominated America for a generation.
Just how has the conservative discourse dominated America for a generation? When last I checked, liberals were quite talkative (not to say loud)—on TV, in academia, churches, newspapers, periodicals, blogs, You Tube, and in fact most of the current sources of information except for talk radio. But despite the overwhelming representation of liberals in media and academia, the fact that conservatives have sometimes been in power during the last twenty years is interpreted by Mr. Wieseltier as “dominating” the discourse.
Consider the insane headline on Newsweek’s cover, “We Are All Socialists Now”: an exclamation of its inner Hannity, as if the president is preparing to abolish private property or expropriate the means of production.
Wieseltier is either ignorant of what socialism is, or purposely deceptive about it. But just for the record, socialists have never agreed that private property should be abolished or that the state should control the means of production. That’s Communism, which is an extreme subset of socialism.
Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, Polish and Chinese Communists in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not prices for the means of production). Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies and tax-funded welfare programs and the regulation of markets. Libertarian socialism (including social anarchism and libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers’ councils and workplace democracy.
All that is happening, comrades, is that our democratically constituted central government is acting to protect the whole of our economy by taking over, for a period, a part of our economy.
Oh, is that all (see above definition of socialism)? I guess if you say it will be for our own protection, we’ll believe it, Mr. Wieseltier. And if you say it’s only temporary, we’ll believe that too. But if you look at the actual history of socialism (or even of FDR’s New Deal), I’d say the facts argue otherwise.
The Republicans are not only heartless, they are also hypocritical, since the cause of all this [financial] misery was the market abandon that they promoted so messianically.
Which side of this argument is correct can be debated, of course. But Mr. Wieseltier doesn’t feel the need to do this; he merely states his position as an established fact. That’s probably because he’s preaching to the choir.
The supposed “heartlessness” of Republicans is a popular meme on the Left. It’s the result of either a misunderstanding or a willful distortion about Republican beliefs. The truth is that most Republicans and Democrats aspire to helping people have good and prosperous lives. They disagree on the best means to go about doing that.
If one is to evaluate which group has the better ideas on the subject, it’s best to look at the evidence of results rather than focus on intentions. But Mr. Wieseltier elevates the latter over the former—and imputes evil motivations to Republicans, as well.
I want the president to tell the American people that, contrary to what they have been taught for many years, government is a jewel of human association and an heirloom of human reason…
Republicans venerate our Constitution, the founders, and their intent. It’s the practice of government they tend to distrust, and with good reason.
Does Mr. Wieseltier really believe his rosy words about government’s performance, as opposed to its ideals? Almost any personal encounter with government would tell him otherwise.
…that government, though it may do ill, does good; that a lot of the good that government does only it can do…
No disagreement here; and conservatives agree. The disagreement is about how much is too much.
…that the size of government must be fitted to the size of its tasks, and so, for a polity such as ours, big government is the only government…
Again, assertion of a philosophy with no backup history or evidence, and ignoring the many times and places where big government has led to even bigger problems.
…that a government based on rights cannot exclude from its concern the adversities of the people who confer upon it its legitimacy, or consign their remediation to the charitable moods of a preferred and decadent few…
Once again: Republicans are also concerned with adversity, and they want the best for people. However, they disagree with Democrats on which governmental policies are most likely to promote it. And Wieseltier ought to learn a bit more about how grassroots charity works in this country.
…that Ronald Reagan, when he proclaimed categorically, without exception or complication, that “government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem,” was a fool…
Here again, Wieseltier is either ignorant (and, I might add, abysmally, unforgivably ignorant) or lying. Reagan, when last I checked, was not an anarchist.
Here’s the Reagan speech Wieseltier is referencing; notice the “exceptions” and “complications.” Reagan, appropriately enough, was speaking of the economic crisis he inherited from his liberal predecessor, Jimmy Carter. His words in their full context bear repeating—because, strangely enough, they fit today’s economic situation as well (fancy that):
You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we’re not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding: We are going to begin to act, beginning today.
The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we’ve had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.
Did Wieseltier even bother to check the sentence he quoted to see when and where it had been said, and what Reagan might actually have meant by it? Since Reagan wasn’t in the habit of stepping up to the podium, stating a single sentence, and then withdrawing, wouldn’t it have been logical to assume that there was some sort of qualification and/or context to it? And it wouldn’t have taken too much time (it took me about ten seconds, max) to find out—because the context is embedded in the sentence itself: “in this present crisis.”
But no, that would be too factual, and too fair, for Wieseltier, who is more interested in glorying in the achievement of liberal hegemony than to bother with such pesky details as facts.
There’s more to fisk, but why bother? I think the point is clear enough. But I’ll close with one more quote from Wieseltier:
In an open society, therefore, it is the intellectual duty of the citizen to search for the warrant for his views, to raise opinions into beliefs by means of reasons, right reasons, reasons conceived in the bravery of arguments. This is the only way to resist the regimentations of demagogues and entertainers.
I agree with this, actually—except that I would add that those “reasons,” and that “bravery of arguments,” should be founded in facts and history rather than mere opinion and yearning.
Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Wieseltier resembles one of those demagogues he is warning us about. Whether he is also an entertainer—well, I’ll leave that up to you.
[ADDENDUM: For a bit of pertinent history, here’s Reagan’s actual speech. Enjoy (the relevant portion begins around 5:05).]
