
To comment on a post, click on the blog title or 'read more' link.
Yesterday the conservative political columnist David Brooks debated the more conservative Republican congressman and incoming House Budget Committee chair, Paul Ryan, at the ultraconservative American Enterprise Institute. The topic was “The Proper Role of Government.” By his own account, Brooks admires Ryan so the debate was amiable, but here is a point of departure that I think is worthy of giving pause to all of us:
“Ryan and I differed over President Obama and the prospects for compromise in the near term. Ryan believes that the country faces a clearly demarcated choice. The Democratic Party, he argues, believes in creating a European-style cradle-to-grave social welfare state, while the Republicans believe in a free-market opportunity society. There is no overlap between the two visions and very little reason to think they can be reconciled.
I argued that Obama and his aides are liberal or center-left pragmatists and that nothing they have said or written suggests they want to turn the U.S. into Sweden. I continued that Ryan’s sharply polarized vision is not only journalistically inaccurate, it makes compromise and politics impossible. If every concession is regarded as an unprincipled surrender that takes us inexorably farther down the road to serfdom, then nothing will get done and the nation will go bankrupt.”
“All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure.”
--Mark Twain
Admittedly I have wanted to use the above quotation in relation to Sarah Palin for a long time. But I resisted using it. Yes, her behavior when she ran for vice president epitomized it. And yes, her behavior since then proves only how much she deserves it. But it wasn’t until her new book was published that I felt I could no longer hold back. Honestly, my friends, it is time we all took a deep breath and began in earnest to dismantle any hope this freak of American politics has for running for the highest office in our beloved land in 2012.
Palin’s book, America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag, proves that without a doubt she has moved from sublimely boneheaded to simply ridiculous and deeply dangerous, yet, having said that, I fear more than ever that she may, in fact, be successful. Why would I say that?
I was struck this morning by Thomas Friedman’s op-ed column, “From WikiChina” in the New York Times. Imagining a cable from the Chinese Embassy in Washington about the state of America, the piece begins with the observation:
“America remains a deeply politically polarized country, which is certainly helpful for our goal of overtaking the U.S. as the world’s most powerful economy and nation. But we’re particularly optimistic because the Americans are polarized over all the wrong things. … Americans just had what they call an ‘election.’ Best we could tell it involved one congressman trying to raise more money than the other (all from businesses they are supposed to be regulating) so he could tell bigger lies on TV more often about the other guy before the other guy could do it to him. This leaves us relieved. It means America will do nothing serious to fix its structural problems: a ballooning deficit, declining educational performance, crumbling infrastructure and diminished immigration of new talent.”
The Irish author Rowan Somerville won this year’s “Bad Sex in Fiction” award, an annual celebration of prose that fails to, er, inspire confidence. The award winner’s most failed purple passage was this one: “Like a lepidopterist mounting a tough-skinned insect with a too blunt pin he screwed himself into her.”
In my humble opinion the award, which had several other notable nominees ranging from Jonathan Franzen’s novel Freedom to Tony Blair’s memoirs, missed an opportunity by not nominating the core political narrative of Barack Obama in the 2010 election campaign. That core narrative was: "Things would be a lot worse without us."
The newest WikiLeaks release of a quarter of a million diplomatic cables, most from the past three years, has predictably produced a range of politicized responses. What the documents provide is “in the public interest,” according to the NY Times, the newspaper responsible for publishing them. Why? Because they “illuminat[e] the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.” Certainly that claim is true. But that’s not where the worst damage will be done.
George W. Bush’s new memoir, Decision Points, is less a memoir than a testimony to true crime, which is where some U.S. activists, following the lead of British activists’ treatment of Tony Blair’s memoir, are encouraging booksellers to stock it. As Dan Froomkin’s excellent review of the facts-versus-the-lies demonstrates, Bush, whose ideological commitment—while no crime in itself—to spending money we didn’t have led to the crises still plaguing the U. S. and world economies, also, with malicious intent and considerable forethought, committed two easily documented crimes during the eight long years of his miserable presidency:
“… the two most essential lies -- among the many -- in his new memoir are that he had a legitimate reason to invade Iraq, and that he had a legitimate reason to torture detainees. Neither is remotely true. But Bush must figure that if he keeps making the case for himself -- particularly if it goes largely unrebutted by the traditional media, as it has thus far -- then perhaps he can blunt history's verdict.”
Yesterday was Sunday, a peaceful day of promised rest from the great gigamaflanks (yes, I made that word up) that define the usual politics of newsmaking the other six days of every week in 24/7 mediated America. But on Sunday, no. It is a day of rest. Attend services or go for a long walk. Maybe both. Make a proper pot roast, watch some NFL football. Think about whatever. Spend time with the family. Tinker with the furnace before winter arrives. But, alas, as is my nasty habit, I begin each and every day with large cup of black coffee and a perusal of several online news sources.
And so it was that my eyes were assaulted by a series of headlines about Sarah Palin and the 2012 presidential race. These headlines were not good signs. I read on. Surely some modicum of sanity would prevail among my favorite columnists and reporters?
Every morning I wake up to news reports that remind me that Walt Whitman was right: America is large enough “to contain contradictions.” I am not surprised to find that a recently elected Teapublican candidate Andy Harris who campaigned against healthcare reform now demands that it be supplied to him ahead of schedule, or that those newbies who said maintaining a strong national defense was a priority have suddenly fallen in line behind Mitch “our priority is to defeat Obama” McConnell and John Kyl in opposing the START treaty, which every expert from Colin Powell to Henry Kissinger to Robert Gates says is key to our future national security.
In an article about a video depicting a “liberal” astronomy professor at LSU “mocking” conservative students in class—a video inspired by a Virginia-based conservative “leadership” group called Campus Reform—the professor’s defense is that he was “challenging all of his students, liberal and conservative … and not chastising any of them for their beliefs.” The unedited video supports his claim.
In another article two other cases of students recording and publishing to the web segments of professor’s classes— at Cornell, another at the University of Central Florida—are characterized by Cary Nelson, president of the AAUP, as an example of the “misrepresentation of what has taken place in classrooms.” All three of these incidents also document the “gotcha” quality of these moments, college professors caught on video challenging beliefs about global warming or complaining about student yawns or about student cheating on exams, as if these “gotcha” moments truly represent the whole of the educational experience. Nelson concludes:
I opened the op-ed section of the NY Times this morning and saw the lead article “Pretty Good for Government Work” by the fabulously wealthy investment guru from Omaha, Mr. Warren Buffett. In this belated love letter, Mr. Buffett, commenting on the U. S. Government’s intervention to prevent a total economic meltdown observes:
“The challenge was huge, and many people thought you were not up to it. … Well, Uncle Sam, you delivered. People will second-guess your specific decisions; you can always count on that. But just as there is a fog of war, there is a fog of panic — and, overall, your actions were remarkably effective.