I am really sick and tired of "gotcha" politics. There's a class of advocates and newsmongers who thrive on the latest trumped-up scandal. Few of these have much significance. The most recent tempest-in-a-teapot concerns Mr. Obama's relationship with his pastor -- as if that mattered. Let's be serious -- are YOU willing to accept moral responsibility for all the statements made by your pastor, preacher, priest, rabbi, or mullah --including those not made in your presence?
By the time you read this, Mr. Obama's case will probably have been dumped for some other ridiculous "scandal". Let's consider some of the recent kerfluffles:
1. The most absurd was the complaint against Ms. Clinton that one of her campaign ads featuring a video clip of her out campaigning included in the distance a lawn ornament that is offensive to blacks. Talk about a stupid criticism!
2. Then there was the brouhaha over the darkening of Mr. Obama's face in a Clinton campaign ad. This, I confess, had some small degree of significance -- it really does appear that somebody deliberately altered the original video to make him appear blacker. This was definitely wrong. But I don't think it deserved much attention. We should have chalked it up as yet another example of "Stupid Politician Tricks" and moved on.
3. The wrangle over Mr. McCain's relationship with a female lobbyist was particularly ironic. The issue that grabbed the most attention -- the possibility of a sexual relationship between Mr. McCain and the lobbyist -- was both absurd and meaningless. Who cares if Mr. McCain had sex with this woman; it's utterly meaningless! Besides, I am willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt. I really don't think that he engaged in anything sexually untoward. What WAS significant, I think, is the evidence that Mr. McCain awarded government favors to a lobbyist. The special treatment that Mr. McCain gave to the lobbyist's client is definitely unsavory. I don't think any crimes were committed, and I won't make a federal case out of it, but there is some small substance here -- and the press seems to have ignored that in preference to the salacious side of the story.
4. The Rezko case presents us with another remote possibility of something significant, blown all out of proportion. Mr. Rezko appears to have been a possibly shady operator, and is now on trial in Chicago for alleged misdeeds. He supported Mr. Obama in his early years, and provided Mr. Obama with what appears to be some financial assistance. This, by itself, means little; the world is full of shady operators and a politician cannot be held responsible for the actions of all their supporters. The only question is whether Mr. Obama reciprocated with any special favors. As yet, there has been absolutely nothing in the way evidence in that regard. In this, Mr. Obama's case contrasts sharply with Mr. McCain's case, for we know that Mr. McCain did favors for his supporter.
I'm not arguing here that politicians should not be accountable -- I think they should be held accountable for the actions that matter. All three of the major candidates have served as Senators; why haven't their voting records been subjected to close scrutiny? Let's keep our eye on the ball here: a politician's job is to make political decisions, and the best indication of the political decisions that they'll make in the future is the record of the political decisions they have made in the past. Yet we have seen very little discussion of this in the campaigns, because Americans are too god-damned lazy to pay attention to what matters.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
"Gotcha" Politics
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
I think that you underestimate this scandal. Even a few years ago, without some public and dramatic renunciation on Obama's part, this would have been a campaign-killer.
It is, however, a TV scandal—one actuated by sound bites; and it seems to me that Obama's speech is tantamount to an appeal over the heads of the television scandalmongers, directly to the Internet.
The (to me, inscrutable) furor over Howard Dean's yell in 2004 was an example of the opposite--television defeating the Internet.
If Obama survives this, I think it will prove an important (and auspicious) shift in power between media.
I second Rodriguez: you're shortchanging the significance of the Obama/Wright stuff. (Because you're an Obama fan? Maybe, and understandable.)
I second Rodriguez again for his closing: it's a major victory for Obama if he can take this and survive.
Perhaps we can resolve our difference here by concentrating on the difference between the way the issue SHOULD be addressed and the way that the average American ACTUALLY does address it. I think that we can all agree that in a well-functioning democracy, citizens would not be distracted by such trivial matters and would concentrate on the substantial political differences. I think we can also agree that Americans fall well short of this standard. The question then becomes, just how stupid do we think Americans are? I suppose that I'm the naive optimist here, willing to give them credit for some intelligence. I can understand how others might not be so charitable.
Chris, We're not that far apart. I just didn't think your contretemps Nos. 2-4 were in the same league with No. 1.
And if the early polls are a good indication, maybe you're not such a "naive optimist."
On Obama's pastor issue:
Before I begin, I'll clarify that I voted for Obama and still support the man, but my relatives brought up a very good point at dinner tonight. Obama may not be morally accountable for every little thing that his associates say, but the fact is that he has attended for years and years on a very frequent basis this church, one which does have pretty unsettling views from what I've read on the BBC (9/11 being "chickens coming home to roost"). It is a very militant church, and it is unsettling that he would show such strong support knowingly. This is fairly different than him simply being associated with said pastor.
I think that he handled it fairly well in the speech, and so unlike some members of my family, I did not show an outright disgust, but I think its important to consider that he has been a very active participant in this church for years, and clearly knew what kind of message was being sent. Therefore, I feel that this case may actually be a genuine, albeit small reason to question his character, and not just a "gotcha".
Alex, I think that, if we want to condemn Mr. Obama's pastor, we have to see the entire picture. We know that he did a great deal of work fighting drug addiction, helping kids with their education, helping single moms find good homes, and so forth. I don't know whether he did mountains or molehills of this kind of stuff. But I do know that it is unfair to take some sound bites off of YouTube and condemn a man for them. If we're going to condemn him, we should look at the entire picture.
That is a good point, and while I do disagree with militantly anti-white/anti-American opinions, from what I've read of Obama's speech (I have yet to see it), I believe that he made the right points to say that he cannot have disowned him without disowning the entire black community, and is right to show us that this is not as simple of an issue as it seems.
However, the fact still stands that I do not feel that this is simply a "gotcha" thing. I believe that to some degree, we the voting population have a right to know that he has been an active participant in a congregation that preaches militant anti-American/anti-white rhetoric for two decades. Whether or not this shows bad character (to which I think we both say "no") is up to the voter to decide.
Alex: In November it comes down to a choice. John McCain asked (repeat: asked) for the endorsement of the hatemonger Hagee, and made a special trip to Dallas to accept Hagee's endorsement. McCain would give America Bush III. Is that what you want? It's an easy choice for me, and I hope for you (and America) as well.
The comparison of Obama:Wright with McCain:Hagee is certainly revealing.
1: Hagee asserts that Katrina was God's punishment for the sinfulness of New Orleans; Wright asserts that 9/11 was the "chickens coming home to roost" after years of American killing of innocents overseas. (a defensible claim, I believe).
2. McCain embraced Hagee and stated that he was proud to accept Hagee's endorsement; Obama flatly denounced Wright's nastiness.
3. McCain's relationship with Hagee was a minor story that was quickly forgotten; Obama's relationship with Wright was blown up to become the top political story for a week.
The ironies of this comparison, and the gross unfairness to Mr. Obama, are truly disgusting.
However, I want to emphasize that I consider BOTH forms of guilt by association to be unacceptable. I refuse to accept condemnation of either man an account of these factors. Guilt by association is illogical and unfair. We should instead concentrate primarily on their voting records.
I actually hadn't heard about this Hagee guy, shows how much the media really can blow things up. Truthfully, I don't pay any attention to scandals, but the Wright incident was shoved into my face all week.
I think I have implied that this has not deterred my support for Obama. I do not want McCain, I don't want a man who envisions a permanent military presence in Iraq.
Back to the subject however of guilt by association. I don't think that this is entirely that. Obama did not just happen to go to this church once in a while, it was a steady attendance where he understood what was being preached. I feel that when one participates heavily in a community of very strong convictions, that they are showing significant support for those convictions, and thus signing themselves into an identity. If I were a long-time member of a congregation that believed strongly in white supremacy, I think that I would be morally accountable for showing my support for such views.
However, as I've also said, I think that Obama has handled this rightly to say that he cannot disown this pastor any more than he could disown the entire black community. While some cry "double standard", I think Obama is right to take into account the suffering of the black community, and instead point out to us that there is a divide in this country that needs to be fixed, not a pack of enemies who preach against us.
So, to sum up my point, I'll say that guilt by association is different than guilt by an active show of support towards a particular view. However, I also am not holding this against Obama because the issue is more complicated than most Americans would like to admit. Also, because as you said, voting records say a lot more about what a candidate will DO when he's in office.
Also, I forgot to note that I do think what McCain did is somewhat important in further understanding his potential leadership.
McCain has been pandering to the religious right for support for quite a while now, and the fact that he is willing to ask the endorsement of a man who called hurricane Katrina a "punishment" from God shows that in office he may give in to the pushing and shoving of the religious/social right wing, which would make him a lot different than the McCain that many others picture; the McCain who was more moderate regarding many issues. It's important to note that the latter is highlighted by much of his voting record.
Sounds good, Alex. We're actually not far apart, and I'm willing to accept our differences as reasonable ones.
Potential scandals or last-minute "ah HA!" type events in the media, I've a feeling that the Democratic race is going to end in a dead-lock, no matter what happens. The super-delegates are going to end up deciding who to back in a back-room fashion. They don't want to, since it would run the risk of splintering the party, but asking
By the way, great blog, Chris! I'm looking forward to reading more as we approach November. I'm definitely pro-Obama and pro-Democrat myself...
I've never liked the Republican/conservative stances. It makes me boil over with rage that our federal government is wasting tax dollars trying to legislate minority moralities. I'm also looking forward to the day that Reagan's teflon coating finally wears off and someone can say something objective and critical about his presidency.
As for Hillary... I'm all for a female president but not HER. She's far too much the career politician. I remember when she briefly jumped on the "video games are EVIL!" bandwagon because she thought, apparently, it would gain her some conservative approval. When it didn't, she backed away.
Slightly off-topic, Chris, but have you read David McCullough's book "John Adams"? It's a fascinating and engrossing biography of the 2nd president. It really gives some fascinating insights into the founding of the nation. You certainly walk away with a differing viewpoint on many of the founding fathers, such as Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamiltion, and, naturally, John Adams. (Who I would say is long overdue for some serious recognition.)
Also, sheesh, if we think mud-slinging is bad today, it was REALLY bad at the start. Newspapers were open allies of political parties, and would publish outrageous claims and accusations. Because Adams kicked up a fuss about the president's title (he thought it should be more grandiose), the rival papers labeled him a "Monarchist" ready to instate nobility in the country.
Apologies for the prior comment cutting off, didn't finish my thought and Blogger doesn't appear to allow editing. :)
Indeed, I have never understood the conservative love for Mr. Reagan. He presided over huge increases in Federal spending. He presided over the Iran-Contra affair, which always struck me as a serious blow to the Constitution. And the one thing that conservatives most laud him for -- defeating the Soviet Union -- was not even his achievement to claim. It was the culmination of the containment policy initiated in 1947 as a result of an article in Foreign Affairs by George Kennan. What happened was exactly what Kennan predicted, based on exactly what Kennan recommended.
No, I haven't read the Adams biography yet.
On Reagan, I don't know much about the guy, but it seems that even though he did pretty much just catch the wave when it came to "defeating" the Soviet Union, most people unfortunately don't seem to have much of a memory span when it comes to American history. However, I have also noticed that part of it had to do with how Jimmy Carter apparently handled things; a lot of 50-70 year olds who are liberals that I've asked say that Jimmy Carter was just so incompetent regarding the Iranian hostage crisis and the oil shortage that they were relieved to see Reagan replace him and do something about it.
As for the Iran-Contra affair, I'd hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I've gone toe-to-toe with hardcore conservatives on this one; the response is one that I think may shock you even with all of your experience with conservative bloggers:
"Where did you get your so called 'facts', communist party of America?"
No joke, that's what he actually said to me.
I don’t think that Wright’s inflammatory remarks and sentiments are comparable to those of white supremacy groups. I did find his style and delivery to be extremely distasteful and counterproductive, and much of the substance was clearly exaggerated for effect, but he didn't cross an important line in my mind.
Wright did not call for institutionalized bigotry. He did not incite violence or encourage his audience towards uncivil action. He was simply criticizing American policies that he clearly feels are perverse and morally unsound.
I've read people calling him a traitor. To me, that's seriously overblown. Was what he said really treason? I don't think it's useful to equate criticism, however flamboyant, with a serious crime. We should reserve those sorts of things for people who actually do real harm.
In terms of well being, I consider things like Wright's speech to be far less damaging to America than the policies he was demonizing. It’s too bad that this and other so-called “gotcha” events can so easily take the focus away from what really matters: America's policies.
Yes, the reaction against Mr. Wright is grossly overblown. If you watch the video of the comments, including the context (maybe ten minutes overall), it's quite clear that his comments are a political condemnation of a ugly historical facts. Moreover, the wording used is appropriate for the medium of delivery. The oratorical style used in black churches has its own strong traditions that are quite alien to that of other groups. I am slightly familiar with that oratorical style, and I found that, in translating from that style to mainstream English, the blood-curdling comments get really watered down. This is a subtle point about the nature of oratory that few people appreciate.
Here's an example of my point: let's consider the standard phrase, "My fellow Americans". Well, it's standard in American politics. But what if, say, the President of Mexico used it in addressing the US Congress? Would people be uncomfortable with that usage? What if it were used by a car salesman in a commercial? Would that seem wrong or out of place? Context controls the meaning of our words -- if you don't understand the oratorical context, you can't understand the words.
Lastly, the suggestions that Mr. Wright's comments are in some way treasonous is the usual blather of conservatives who think with their stomachs. I'm hoping that a conservative who thinks with his head will join this discussion!
"Lastly, the suggestions that Mr. Wright's comments are in some way treasonous is the usual blather of conservatives who think with their stomachs..."
Think with their stomachs? I'm not sure they think at all.
Very good points about oratory, that actually really got across a point I was looking to hear.
Truthfully, after the debate point I had posted on here, I did have to sit down and think "am I really going to buy into this crap that Obama did something morally objectionable?" Clearly, ymalaika is correct that this is different, Wright wasn't calling for institutionalized bigotry, or anything else like that.
Also, very correct that "criticism, no matter how flamboyant is never treason", although I never accused pastor wright of treason. I guess however what I thought about most during this time was that I am a middle class white male from a (nominally) catholic family who went to private school for high school, and to put it simply, I do not know what it's like to be black, and that played a large role in changing my thinking.
Seems though that Obama has a lot of other problems on his hands at the moment.
Gerald writes:
"Think with their stomachs? I'm not sure they think at all."
We need to avoid this kind of attitude. Yes, I too get frustrated with the poor quality of the arguments we so often hear from the right. Nevertheless, if we are to understand their thinking, we must not insult them. I would dearly love to have a reasonable conservative show up here, and the comment above would discourage such people from making an appearance.
I think y'all are missing the point here. There will never be an end to gotcha politics as long as the discussion on the matter is always limited to the latest manifestations of this trend. In current politics, elections are a zero-sum game. One candidate's win is the other's loss. In such a scenario, if you're a candidate truly believing in his cause you almost automatically resort to gotcha politics etc. Why? Because it works, the other candidate's tainted and you have an advantage over him. In my humble opinion, this will continue unless the political system is changed - a triumvirate would for example grossly diminish chances for gotcha politics to play such a heavy role in campaigning. Ensure a Republican and a Democratic (elected by members of the parties - like the current caucus/primary rounds) sharing power along with a third candidate (elected by all people) and everybody has to work together, instead of against each other. Surely it's not completely democratic, it's better!
P.S. I'm a proud right-wing libertarian, you see we really can engage in polite discussion.
P.S. Hey keep this blog rolling will you, it's very important that discussion between the two sides actually takes place!
Stephen
"We need to avoid this kind of attitude."
Of course you're right; of course. Forgive me for transgressing, and I promise to be good.
I recently argued with a very reasonable conservative. His arguments were not based on values and anger, everything was actually for a logical reason.
I think the problem is that trying to "find out how conservatives think" is barking up the wrong tree. It's a viewpoint, and there are many reasons to have a viewpoint. Some people are liberals because they're repulsed by war and think that at all costs we should stop it, other liberals like myself simply find most liberal policies to be more logical.
The conservative I argued with was conservative on foreign policy because he thinks that nothing besides force will stop nuclear armament of rogue regimes. A lot of conservatives on the other hand have (illogical, if you ask me) values such as our nation's "honor", and anger towards terrorists that blinds judgment in what course of action we should take.
Going to a really politically correct college, I can say that there are plenty of liberals out there who think idealistically. So the real question is, which conservatives are doing things out of emotion, and which conservatives are basing their viewpoints on different reasoning?
Also, I wanted to request a post on a new topic: Iran.
I'm curious to see what people here would say on military action regarding Iran. Although I am opposed to the idea of another war, and doubt the nation's capacity to handle any more military action, I also have no confidence in any kind of diplomatic means dissuading Iran. Yes, there was that intelligence report claiming Iran having stopped its program, but I cannot honestly trust American intelligence reports, especially amidst the rhetoric of Iran's president.
So my question I ask this blog is, how do you think that we should address Iran?
First, welcome, Stephen! I hope that you will help keep us honest by catching us when we get sloppy. And if you have any political compatriots whom you think could contribute to this discussion, please invite them.
I agree that much of the problem with gotcha politics is a consequence of the two-party system. If there are only two parties, then denigrating the other guy is just as effective as promoting yourself. The parliamentary system used almost everywhere else does not suffer so much from this problem, and their elections are certainly not burdened with the childish name-calling that is so characteristic of American politics.
Most Constitutional scholars agree that the two huge failures of the Founding Fathers were 1) their mishandling of the slavery issue; and 2) their failure to anticipate the effects of a two-party system. On the other hand, none of the Founding Fathers dreamed that their Constitution would last for more than a few decades, much less two centuries. We were supposed to amend it frequently and replace it occasionally. We haven't had the courage to do so -- ergo we end up saddled with these stupid artifacts of an ancient, near-obsolete Constitution.
Alex, I would very much like to discuss policy towards Iran. I am now recovering from major surgery, and shall be a bit overloaded for another week, but in my spare moments I'll start hammering together a piece that should serve as a starting point for discussion.
"I am now recovering from major surgery, and shall be a bit overloaded for another week..."
To your recovery: may it be speedy and complete.
Post a Comment