Sunday, November 2, 2008

I'm Bloggingdino, and I Approved This Message

Well, the tricksters and robo-callers are out in force in this final push to pump out as much bunkum as possible before it's all over but the votin'. I don't think it's going to work this time because the country's mood seems strongly against the continuation of Republican governance. Still, this kind of distortion is disturbing, and those who employ it don't do so only at desperate moments. It's as if there are simply NO accepted standards about what can and should be taken seriously in public discourse. (A few things the Demos have done, by the way, have probably been on the same level—the whole business about McCain's allegedly shaking the bring-it-on stick at "100 Years of War" being a prime instance. His meaning was clearly subjected to distortion and then repeated until it stuck. That shady maneuver deserves the official Babu Bhatt from Seinfeld finger wag of disapproval. Very, very bad.) Anything to hijack the next news cycle set the talking heads a-spinning.

I remember a passage in one of Montaigne's essays in which he ladles out an unbelievably stupid syllogism (I think it goes, "drinking quenches thirst; ham causes us to desire to drink; therefore, ham quenches thirst") and then provides the proper response: not speech, but a contemptuous smile. But completely illogical, nonsensical, and even crazy claims today don't generate that response—they lead instead to long, tortured discussions in the news outlets and on blogs, to fake campaign-outrage followed by probably genuine outrage on the part of some ordinary citizens.

This weekend's prizewinning ridiculous claim (as documented here on Bob Cesca's site) has to do with the McCain campaign saying that Obama's statement, apparently at an Iowa rally ("My faith in the American people was vindicated and what you started here in Iowa swept the nation") means he used to be dubious about the country but now he thinks it's not so bad after all. This claim is approximately as stupid as Montaigne's joke syllogism, but here we have supposedly rational adults—mature politicians and, after the fact, journalists making millions of dollars to sound smart—taking it seriously.

The righties pulled the same thing on Michelle Obama for that remark she made about being proud of her country "for the first time in my adult life" (I'm paraphrasing) -- that remark was clumsy, but it was cruel to hyperinflate it to the level of Symbionese Liberation Army radicalism. Part of the trouble in that instance, I suspect, had to do with some white folk not understanding the way many black folk relate to "patriotism." I find in many African American commentators a sober estimation of how things stand and how they could be improved, along with a steadfast refusal to be snowed by skillful propagators of bunkum. The great original for such clarity might be Frederick Douglass: witness his sometimes caustic but always altogether necessary criticism. We won't find Douglass engaging in jingoism or echo-chamber heroics; his "Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln" is remarkable for its simultaneous appreciation of the man's accomplishments and assessment of his shortcomings: "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined...." MLK JR would be the modern version, with his statement about the Founders' "blank check" that the current generation needed to make good and his firm denunciation of the Vietnam War. His were hardly the views of a mild-mannered promoter of orthodoxy. So I took Michelle's statement in this broader context, though it was evident that some people apparently about as well grounded in American history as the nearest squirrel didn't see things that way at all.

On a related issue of misconstruction and generally whacked-out priorities, Glenn Greenwald has a good short essay today in Salon titled "The Single Worst Expression in American Politics" on the creeping and insidious practice of referring to the president as "commander in chief," as if that tribal-sounding, militaristic phrase actually sums up what the presidency means. It's something I have been privately noticing for a long time, so I'm glad to see Greenwald so roundly condemning it. No doubt the growth of U.S. economic and military power in the previous century is largely responsible for this dangerous transformation of our understanding of the president's role (Nixon's so-called "imperial presidency" being one symptom of it), but George W. Bush's reckless, high-handed tenure has furthered this tendency.

A moment that crystallized my dislike for this "c-in-c" business was the Republican primary debates. In one of them, one of the candidates suggested that people's first right was the right to be kept alive. (I'm paraphrasing, but I believe that's pretty close.) Scarcely any statement could be less true to the spirit of the Republic, and it's a horrible distortion of the D of I's phrase about the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The president's primary job is to protect the Constitution -- not our foolish hides, snouts, tentacles, talons, or tails. Maybe someone's said that on this blog already, but I hereby repeat it with an Allosaurus snort and a mildly disquieting low rumble. Talons down also to "warfighter," "war president," and all such primitivistic coinages. We are not a Germanic tribe in the Teutoberg Forest around the time of Christ; we are a modern, cosmopolitan country. "Quintilius Varus, where are my eagles?!"

8 comments:

  1. C-in-C was the term in the Constitution that puts the civilian government in full control of the military thru an executive. When monogrammed on Bush's flight jacket in a Top Gun landing for a "Mission Accomplished" speech, it has an entirely new and disturbing meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another great post from the mighty Dino echoing thoughts that have been churning inside me recently ... actually reminding me of a book I am reading.

    After this abominable election is done (C’ est une Bordelle!), I was planning a book review as a future post, and my intuition tells me you may already know this one:

    Andrew J. Bacevich. The limits of power: The end of American exceptionalism.

    The author discusses the rise of the imperial presidency in the last century, but more pointedly the relationship between abundance, consumption, and freedom as an endless loop taking us on a road to ruin. With ample quotations and wise words from Reinhold Niebuhr throughout.

    Have you been taking your vitamin C, preferably ester-C?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Matt, an incredible gravatar you got there.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Matt,

    Yes, exactly the thing, thanks. It's an important constitutional item, and old Dubya put quite a top-spin on it. I think the reversal involved has been happening at least since our presidents started having the capacity to unleash nuclear Armageddon. It's gone so far now that one would think from listening to Romney and Giuliani & Co that we elect a C-in-C who also happens to be president, as if the primary designation is no longer worth a bucket of warm steer manure.... The most ridiculous pronouncement I've ever heard a president make is GWB's defensive remark, "I'm a war president." Can you imagine Lincoln saying precisely that? Or FDR? In that defensive, almost petulant tone Bush betrayed?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Octo, yes, OJ for the Dino, thanks. I think I've got this cold on the run. Me warfighter! I'll look forward to the review if your time permits -- I've heard of the book and am familiar with the thesis, though I haven't read it yet. I should read more aside from literature and literary theory--used to do that, but I'm getting lazy in my old age.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yesterday, I donated a few hours at my local Obama phone bank center. Quick work for an 8pus, I held the phone with one tentacle and simultaneously dialed all 7 digits with the other tentacles … all in one move.

    Awkward situations were the hard part, i.e., the voter who had no health insurance and blamed Obama for spending umpteen dollars on political advertising and blamed Palin for spending $150,000 on clothes. No, this voter was too angry to vote for either candidate.

    And then there were the “sorry, so-and-so is deceased” responses. After the third dead letter experience, I started feeling like Bartleby, the Scrivener.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Will respond to Robert's fine post later today since I must do some course prep, but Octo, I just wanted to say, you gotta work with those dead voters. Here is a script that might work: "Lazarus, stretch forth thine hand, come from the grave! Rise, and vote for Barack Obama!" And if he's still unconvinced, you can always bring up the undisputed fact that Mickey Mouse, Petunia Pig, and the entire 1927 Yankees lineup are registered to vote and enthusiastically supporting our dear brother Barack. Vote early! Vote often! Vote living! Vote dead!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks, Dino. I needed a good laugh.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.