Gore Vidal: Always Entertaining

Somehow I missed Emily Miller’s piece on Gore Vidal (on the Politics Daily site) back in September of ‘09, in which Vidal excoriates President Obama.

I like Vidal (to the extent I “know” him) because he’s a great writer of historical novels, because he belongs to that era of TV in which you could listen to smart people disagree eloquently, and because he’s very funny. He knows how to couch political and social views in witty rhetoric, so one derives pleasure from the performance even when one disagrees. He practices the lost art of The Conversationalist.

When he was running for a U.S. Senate seat in California, he came to U.C. Davis, where I listened to him speak on the vast lawn known as the Quad. He opined that the Soviet Union was dying from inside and predicted its dissolution. He had no entourage, no handlers or advance-men–just a driver.

Here’s a sample from Miller’s piece:

“In general, [Vidal] thinks that the White House is failing because ‘Obama would have been better off focusing on educating the American people. His problem is being over-educated. He doesn’t realize how dim-witted and ignorant his audience is.’

He says that another of Obama’s mistakes is that he ‘believes the Republican Party is a party when in fact it’s a mindset, like Hitler Youth, based on hatred — religious hatred, racial hatred. When you foreigners hear the word ‘conservative,’ you think of kindly old men hunting foxes. They’re not — they’re fascists.’

In giving advice to President Obama, Vidal cites President Lincoln, who ‘wrote to one of his generals in the South after the Civil War” “I am President of the United States. I have full overall power and never forget it, because I will exercise it.” That’s what Obama needs — a bit of Lincoln’s chill.’

At 83 and in a wheelchair, Vidal’s bitterness seems to stem from his own unfulfilled political ambitions. ‘I would have liked to have been president, but I never had the money. I was a friend of the throne. The only time I envied Jack [Kennedy] was when Joe [Kennedy, his father] was buying him his Senate seat, then the presidency. He didn’t know how lucky he was.’
***
And here is a link to a youtube video of the infamous Buckley/Vidal spat on ABC:

Vidal and Buckley

You Can Beat Something With Nothing

One venerable adage in politics, I gather, is “you can’t beat something with nothing,” meaning (for example) that a political party needs to field quasi-plausible candidates and not concede any race. Allegedly, fielding and supporting candidates in all sorts of races, including those in Republican turf, constituted Howard Dean’s strategy when he headed up the Demo party.

Exceptions do seem to prove (as in “try” or “test,” not as in “prove beyond a reasonable doubt”) the adage, however, and it may be worth one’s while to test adages.

Infamously, John Ashcroft was defeated when running against a deceased opponent. Arguably, then, Nothing beat Something–if we agree that Ashcroft is something.

Also, not long ago, a variety of Demo-friendly pundits were crowing and chirping about the demise of the Repub Party, noting that some polls showed only 20% of “Americans” (who knows what the actual represented group was–likely voters?) “identified” as Republicans. Additional caws and whistles noted how ludicrous visible Repub pols seemed: Larry Craig, John Boehner, Sarah Palin. An implied argument hidden in this rhetorical noise seemed to be borrowed from the languages of sports and/or gaming: “They got nothin’!”

Assuming they, the Repubs, had nothing, while the Demos had something, such as a President, a majority in the House, and 60 sonorous senatorial votes, how is it that the Repubs defeated even the diluted health-care reform, beat a Demo in Ted Kennedy’s turf, made Obama’s team look about as legislatively cunning as Carter’s, and enjoyed the revival of Sarah Palin, who found herself sitting across from Oprah?

One answer: You can beat something with nothing, and the result is that those allegedly served by “representative democracy” get nothing. The great, late Billy Preston got there before us: Nothin’ from nothin’ leaves nothin’.

Too Big Too Fail, Too Small To Matter

“Too Big Too Fail” entered active U.S. parlance, and perhaps even global gab, during the latest and one of the worst spasms of so-called free-market capitalism, which resembles that Exxon tanker driven by a drunk. AIG [please fill in the words for the initials according to your own satiric tastes], Citi Bank [the second i in itself should doom this bank], and other confederacies of crooks were said to be too big to fail, so that U.S. taxpayers were supposed to be resigned to the resulting extortion.

The unspoken but indubitable counterpart to Too Big To Fail is, of course, Too Small To Matter. A person, group, business, or organization is too small to matter when it has insufficient juice to influence the ship of stasis. Who cares if your small business can’t get credit even though it has shown it can repay a loan? Who cares if 30-40 million don’t have health insurance? Who cares if the thief running the bank that was too big to fail is now injecting his “lifestyle” with another load of your money?

“Too Big To Fail” means, perhaps, that the system has already failed.

Left, Center, Right: Wrong

As Wild Bill has noted, “Labels Distract–Duh”.

The labels Left, Center, and Right, as applied to an imagined political spectrum, have never seemed more useless and distracting to me than they do now.

An article in the recent Economist, for example, chides President Obama for having gone too far Left and advises him to return to the Center. Presumably, the most Leftist initiative he has pursued is health-care reform, which he more or less began with cutting a deal with large pharmaceutical companies. If alleged “free-market” (another useless label) capitalism is Centrist or Rightist, then Obama did not move Left, even according to the Economist’s sense of things.

A larger question: Why is an initiative to secure medical insurance for almost all citizens “Leftist”? “Reasonable” and “practical” seem to be better descriptors.

But of course those who like the system as it is (including tens of millions without medical insurance) have a stake in distracting citizens with left-right fakery and inducing Obama and Company to protest their innocence of the Leftist charge. Meanwhile, Democratic Congresspersons who can’t decide what they are, politically, or what they want, legislatively, flail.

Reflexively associating any governmental program (not having to do with the military) with the Left seems a) to be silly and b) still to work on most people. Associating doing nothing about health-care reform (for instance) with a Rightist philosophy seems equally silly. I should think “irresponsible” or “lazy” would work better. And finally, associating “Center” with anything seems like a tired old magician’s trick.

What, pray tell, is the political “center” in the U.S. and what are its attributes? I think it’s a pole, and I think it supports a tent, which covers the circus, in which Left and Right are used to prod voters to do tricks. We must call PETA–or PETV: People for the Ethical Treatment of Voters. Release them from the circus! It’s too cruel!

Enhanced Truthiness, Part Two: The Formulation

Wild Bill’s formulation of “enhanced truthiness”:

“Ordinary truthiness denotes a construction taken for true by some community to preserve beliefs or prejudices. Enhanced truthiness denotes a construction taken for true by some community to preserve a propagandist.”

Just so.

Lying; or, Enhanced Truthiness

Apparently Senator-Elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts, when he isn’t pretending to auction off his daughters from a podium, is thinking that “waterboarding is an enhanced interrogation technique; it’s not torture.” Multiple sites and sources have commented on his view of waterboarding, including politico.com.

Before I analyze his view a bit, I should hasten to add that I think, as in most elections, neither candidate in Massachusetts deserved to win. In fact, I think “No one” should appear on every ballot, and if “No one” gets the majority, then another election should take place until someone gets a majority. If no one ever gets a majority, then the position should go unfilled. (For a while, I immersed myself in different kinds of solitaire, of which there are dozens of types, one of which is called “Try Again, Sir Tommy; voters should have the option of telling political parties, “Try again, Sir Tommy”) Coakley and Brown both seem like clowns to me, but I’m thousands of miles away from Massachusetts, so there’s that.

In any event, to assert that waterboarding isn’t torture is willingly to lie. But to assert that waterboarding is an “enhanced interrogation technique” is willingly and surrealistically to lie. To enhance means to improve, strengthen, sharpen (as in focus), and so on. So what exactly is waterboarding an enhanced form of? Offering someone a cup of water? “Would you like an enhanced drink of water? What we do is blindfold you and force the water down your throat. I know it sounds like torture, but it’s really just ultra-refreshing and, you know, enhanced.”

Coakley said no terrorists were left in Afghanistan. How could she possibly know such a thing? Brown said waterboarding isn’t torture. They were Massachusetts’ candidates. This is the best we can do for a senatorial seat? Really? Put a tent over this circus, and try again, Sir Tommy.

At least Brown’s daughters had the good sense to be mortified, embarrassed, and angry when he offered them to . . . anyone.

Weary Punditry

When I was reading Charles Krauthammer’s column about President Obama’s “fall” (not as in “autumn”), I was reminded of how weary and predictable “Republican,” “Democratic,” “conservative,” and “liberal” punditry is. I put these terms in scare-quotes because although they do refer to people and positions, in reality they are like four eels in a bucket of water. It’s not so much the positions pundits take or the arguments they make that disappoint; it’s the broader predictable game, wherein Obama (in this instance) is “bad” because he is on the other team. I was about to write that political punditry seems adolescent, but I think that would be unkind to adolescents, who often make fresh, effective arguments.

Before I mention some annoying particulars of Krauthammer’s column, I should note that I admire CK’s grit. His having dealt with a devastating injury when he was in college and having achieved significantly in medicine, psychiatry, and journalism are at least impressive.

That said, it is of note that he once wrote speeches for Walter Mondale, so it seems that Krauthammer, like so many others, has supported all the eels in the bucket at one time or another. He has a right to change political views, of course, but at the same time, readers have a right to wonder about the role of expediency and cynicism.

In the present column, Krauthammer equates Obama’s 46 % approval rating with a “fall” of “liberalism,” and he attributes the fall to Obama’s having over-reached. Krauthammer thinks Obama was elected because of dissatisfaction with Bush and because of the economic crisis, certainly not because voters were interested in health-care reform (this latter point I inferred).

Then Krauthammer asserts that American politics is played between the 30 yard lines (of American football). The analogy made me tired: yet another sports metaphor. Then it amused me because, when analyzed, the analogy suggests that American politics never or rarely achieves goals–by design! “Remember–never score! We don’t want to wake the spectators!”

Krauthammer asserts that “Americans” (all of them–he follows them on Twitter) don’t want the “European style democracy” (ESD) that Obama’s policies reflect. There are almost too many hidden assumptions in this assertion to leave it standing as an assertion. What does he mean by ESD? Consider the political and social differences between and among Italy (Berlusconi is no liberal), Germany, Spain, Czechoslovakia, Sweden, and England. Second, what policy has supported that is “European”? Trying to get more people signed up for health insurance? This is what qualifies as dangerously European? And note that “European” is somehow automatically bad, as if we cowboys and cowgirls don’t like no city slicker coming to town with funny ideas about everybody seeing the doc, y’hear? The other major policy-decision Obama made was to press for a “rescue” of banks and, by extension, Wall Street institutions. What else was he supposed to do? Sing “Nine-teen twenty-nine/It was a very good year”? And how is propping up capitalist institutions that self-lacerated because of greed “liberal”?

Is Krauthammer wrong in his assertions? I don’t know because, in effect, there are no assertions, only exaggerations and prefabricated insults of the guy on the other eel’s team, to mix bucket- and sports-metaphors horrifically. For whatever reasons, Krauthammer decided to write public relations columns on behalf of Republican politicians. Other pundits decided to write p.r. for Democrats. These are career-choices, but the writing, rhetoric, and analyses that spring from them dim rather than enlighten.

So, if Obama and Dems are “in trouble,” why? I don’t know, but like some political scientists, I suspect that it has more to do with a partly structural, partly managed ebb and flow of whims expressed by those contacted in polls and those who register to vote and, perhaps, cast votes. By “structural” I mean that shifts in popularity of the two behemoth parties follow larger cultural changes but not specific rational choices, and by “managed” I simply mean that media and those who make a living trying to hypnotize voters benefit from the ebb and flow and thus try, at least, to avoid stasis. I suspect the Dems’ trouble has about as much to do with rational thought and/or ideology as my writing this post has to do with my cat’s mood.

Wisdom About Lies

I found the following quotations on Daryl Cagle’s site, which is an “an index of pro [political] cartoonists.” They–the quotations–present some wisdom about lying.

“An exaggeration is a truth that has lost its temper.” — Kahlil Gibran

“It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.” — H.L. Mencken

“Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true.” — Demosthenes

We can apply these to what we have heard and read, but also to what we, too, have said or written sometimes–yes? (Or perhaps I should just post for myself and implicate no one else!) Put another interrogatively, haven’t we all lost contact, if only momentarily, from the truth because of temper, or because of the situation we are in, or because of what we wish to be true–or because of all three?

Ironically, Cagle himself may have lost contact with the truth when, in the midst of upbraiding President Obama for lying, he provides an example whereby Obama may not have been lying when he said there would be no “death panels” but was nonetheless still fudging because “governments ration health-care.” Cagle leaves his argument there, so it’s for us to fill it in. All governments that are involved in health-care ration health-care; “Obama’s” health-care plan is governmental; therefore it will ration health-care; and therefore Obama is lying (by omission?). Cagle may experience some temper with regard to health-care reform, may want President Obama to be lying, and/or may find himself in a position whereby he feels he must discredit health-care reform. We’ve all been there.

(Many observers have noted Charles Krauthammer’s imperfect relationship to truth with regard to “Obamacare,” a propagandistic label that emits low-grade lying, and that imitates “Hillarycare” dully.)

But let us focus briefly on the quotation from Gibran:

“An exaggeration is a truth that has lost its temper.” — Kahlil Gibran

Has the political environment in the U.S. lost its temper to a greater extent than in previous eras? I want this to be true, but I don’t know if it is. I find it hard to claim it is less temperate than it was in the 1950s, especially from any African American’s point of view. Nonetheless, the punditry of anger seems at least robust. Matthews, Beck, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and Ingraham (to name just a few) seem perpetually angry. True, their schticks call for much faux anger, but I think some of the rage is real and chronic. They are pundits who seem put upon. They interrupt and mis-characterize: tactics of angry rhetoric. Limbaugh seems to live in a bubble of rage, and his mania for control is such that he won’t even take calls anymore, let alone safely screened calls. His animosity toward women and African Americans seems genuine, not simply part of the schtick. He broadcasts from a bunker of simmering rage.

Mendacity, Ignorance, and Misdirection

Andrew Sullivan alerted me to two recent posts of interests to fans of Orwell and political language.  Each demonstrates how mendacity flourishes in this age of truthiness.  Each may be found at Mr. Sullivan’s “The Daily Dish” http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/ on 12 January 2010.

Vignette #1

Jan 12 2010, 10:52 am by Chris Good

McCain: “I Wouldn’t Know” About Palin Vetting Process

John McCain does not want to talk about the 2008 presidential election, or any of the intrigue that’s followed–a fact he made clear in an interview with Matt Lauer this morning on “Today,” in which he said he “wouldn’t know” whether reporting on his vice-presidential vetting efforts was accurate.

Asked by Lauer whether Hark Halperin and John Heileman, authors of the new ‘08 campaign book “Game Change,” were accurate in reporting that the vetting of Sarah Palin was woefully inadequate–that no one on the McCain team had talked to her husband or political enemies–McCain said that he wouldn’t know whether that was accurate. Here’s how the exchange went:

Lauer: One [item reported in "Game Change"] is that your vetting process for Governor Palin, before choosing her as your running mate, was wholly inadequate. From page 363, it says, and I’m combining two quotes here, in judging Palin, ‘was relying on vetting so hasty and haphazard it barely merited the name.’ ‘No one had interviewed her husband, no one had spoken to her political enemies, no vetters had descended on Alaska.’ Is it a fair assessment?

McCain: I wouldn’t know. The fact is that I’m proud of Sarah Palin, I’m proud of the campaign we waged, she energized our party, she will be a major factor in American politics in the future, and I’m proud of our campaign–

As the candidate, one would assume McCain was aware of, if not so directly involved in, the vice presidential vetting process; it’s unclear from his comments to Lauer whether he simply delegated the vetting process and took a hands-off approach, or whether he just doesn’t want to talk about the campaign–though, in either case, the latter appears to be true. After a mildly contentious exchange over the importance of revisiting 2008, Lauer asks McCain what he meant by “I wouldn’t know”:

Matt: But your comment that you just said, “I wouldn’t know,” is somewhat surprising to me. You were the presidential candidate.

McCain: Look, I wouldn’t know what the sources are, nor care. I do know–I do know that I’m proud of my campaign, I’m proud of Sarah Palin, I’m proud of the job that we did, and I will always be grateful for having her has my running mate and the support we got from millions of Americans. Okay? I am not gonna spend time looking back over what happened over a year ago when we’ve got two wars to fight, 10 percent unemployment in my state, and things to do. I’m sorry, you’ll have to get others to comment on it.

Confronted with his and his campaign’s recklessness both with the Vice-Presidential nomination and with the truth, McCain professes ignorance and pride.  Indeed, McCain proudly pronounces himself ignorant of the processes by which his own campaign risked a presidency for Sarah Palin.  Having belched his pride in his own ignorance, McCain then repeats talking points about his campaign and direct audiences to Obama’s shortcomings.

Classic 21st century blather!

Vignette #2

Andrew draws more mendacity and ignorance from Margaret Talbot’s recent New Yorker article about Proposition 8 in California.  It appears to be one thing to ask an attorney of reputation to serve up the shibboleths of ignorant, bigoted traditionalists.  It seems to be another to ask him to debase himself in front of a judge.

… one of the arguments that the anti-gay-marriage side has increasingly turned to outside the courtroom is that allowing same-sex marriage would hurt heterosexual marriage. At the pretrial hearing, Judge Walker kept asking Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending Proposition 8, how exactly it did so. “I’m asking you to tell me,” he said at last, “how it would harm opposite-sex marriages.”

“All right,” Cooper said.

“All right,” Walker said. “Let’s play on the same playing field for once.” There was a pause—it seemed like a long one to people in the courtroom, though it was probably only a few seconds. And Cooper said, “Your Honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.”

Mr. Cooper understandably decides not to shoot his credibility with the court at an early juncture.  He gets credit with yahoos for repeating their shibboleth in the courtroom.  He retains credit with the judge by declining to attempt a defense of that shibboleth in the courtroom.

Andrew Sullivan On Torture

Wild Bill forwarded me a link to one of Andrew Sullivan’s “posts of the year,” this one concerning the fact–yes, fact–that Americans, under the authority of Bush and Cheney, tortured a man they already knew not to be a terrorist of any kind. The post leaves the larger question of torturing in general mostly unexplored, and it may get sentimental about the Founders and their famous checks and balances, but judge for yourself, please:

Sullivan’s post on torture

The post also asserts–reasonably, in my opinion–that President Obama and Eric Holder are now complicit in such torture because they decided not to investigate, let alone prosecute.

Sullivan nicely describes the Legislative Branch as supine, and he alludes to how Bush, Cheney, and their operatives framed torture rhetorically.