Daniel weighs in on politics--Special Edition
Ordinarily, Daniel and politics don't mix. I've never participated in a protest. I never saw Fahrenheit: 9/11. On the war in Iraq I've said said next to nothing. And watching CSPAN is about as appealing to me as jumping in a volcano. Until about a month ago, I was completely apathetic about the political processes of our nation.
( Perhaps that's a good thing. )
( Perhaps that's a good thing. )
Kudos, Dan, for coming forward and saying what you believe. Too many people shy away, because 'no one will care' or 'my opinions just don't matter'. The reality is that everyone's opinion is important. To play off of your essay, I'd say it's incumbent upon those who write well to express their views, because they're out best and most reliable source. You always write so well, I should add.
As you know perfectly well, I'm opinionated, and while I agree with you generally here, I think there's two important points I'd like to disagree with, from your main entry and your comments:
1. This notion of a biased media is bunk. Say we first stipulate that all journalists have opinions. Surveys (for instance, this one, which is pretty scientific and was produced by a a statistician at VCU) have consistently indicated that journalists and media outlets have a bias only within a bipolar framework; once we consider that people can label themselves with varying degrees of political belief (one may be 'very' something, or 'slightly' something) and remove party affiliation then the overwhelming majority of journalists are centrists. There's another important factor here: My own research project my freshman year indicated pretty conclusively that news coverage generally doesn't differ significantly between outlets. I think it gives zero credence to the political independence and professionalism of journalists to insist that all news media sources are biased.
2. I'm not convinced that this political jargonism that you're concerned by (or upset by) is especially unique or problematic. Politics is a really, really big game, most of the time. People like to talk about how dirty it's gotten, but the reality is, you just hear about it now; in 1932 Franklin Roosevelt's campaign ran an amazing PR operation, labeling the newspapers people wrapped themselves in to sleep at night in the Depression "Hoover blankets" and the shantytowns they lived in "Hoovervilles," etc., and that makes what George W. Bush and John Kerry have done and said relatively tame, really. Sure, "W is for Wrong" is a stupid slogan, but you know what? People remember it. And it turns Bush's own rhetoric against him. In political terms, that's almost as brilliant as "You can't win a war if you don't think you're fighting one," which Bush has been saying forever. Politics, if anything, is cleaner in the post-Nixon era than it ever was before. Conspiracy theories about Karl Rove notwithstanding, I think American politics jumped the shark with Watergate. It had to get more tame.
Well, that was longer than I expected it to be.
As I say, I generally agree with you. I believe firmly that the wealthy have a certain obligation to assist others, if only because wealth is just a mix of providence and perspiration; I come from a heavily Jewish-influenced school of thought which says that it's everyone's responsibility to help the weak, but especially the responsibility of those who can help most. I agree with you that gay marriage is fundamentally important; I believe in the Oregon Constitution's formulation that bars withholding privileges and benefits conferred to one group of citizens from any other group. I agree with you that Iraq is the greatest quagmire in a generation, and that we have taken (to paraphrase Daniel Schorr) a hornet's nest where a few people were buzzing around trying to kill us and shoved our fist in it, making it a place where a hundredfold more want to kill us; we are less safe now than we were Sept. 10, 2001, because we now create ten new terrorists for every one killed. And I agree with you that getting four more years of George W. Bush will be disastrous, a combination of hubris, supposed divine guidance and just plain inability to admit that he was wrong.
And now I have written just about every word I possibly can on the topic, Dan. As I said, thank you so much! Kudos!
Reply
Leave a comment