Ask a Stupid Question
Like most of us, I've been following a great deal of the presidential "coverage," and like most fervent supporters of Barack Obama, I am starting to have that sinking feeling. This has little to do with the candidate, or even his campaign, and a lot to do with what Obama's called "the silliness." Philip Roth once said that when he was in graduate school in the early 50s he assumed that the score would be University of Chicago 22, Popular Culture 6. The most serious reason for queasiness is that I assumed, well, serious reason could squeak out a victory this time.
What's Obama's problem? Bill Maher--whom MSNBC rolled out for the opening of its convention coverage, and then seems to have taken out back and shot--caught the mood (or, at least, mine) when he remarked that, with every election, the talk seems to be getting dumber, and the country will no doubt get the leaders it deserves. Maher then threw a left hook at Mormonism, as he has at all religions (Mitt Romney came up and, lucky for Jews, not Joe Lieberman) which prompted Chris Matthews to reassure his viewers that he--or was it the management of MSNBC?--considered Mormons "a great religion," an endorsement that seemed in tone and trenchancy about right for a Chevy, and was really (Maher no doubt thought) more of the disease that presumes itself the cure.
You can't say we weren't warned. John Stuart Mill wrote in 1861
that representative government might be a necessary feature of liberal
commonwealths, but also that educated people should have
disproportionate voting power. He assumed that the franchise was not a
right, but a trust;
that discriminating choices could only be made by people who understood
scientific methods and, hence, valued the rules of evidence and the pursuit of truth. He assumed that uneducated people could not really be trusted to
make the most of their liberties. He actually pointed to American presidential elections, and lamented how campaigns were decided by those "most timid,
most narrow-minded and prejudiced, or who cling most
tenaciously to the exclusive class-interest."
Mill failed to see that ordinary voters could now and then
outdo themselves (Lincoln had just taken office, for God's sake). But
he also failed to see that--if, indeed, educated people assumed that most of the population was "timid," "narrow-minded," etc.--then our conspicuously, inescapably educated people, that is, journalists, would
eventually busy themselves with one science only, what business schools
lovingly call Marketing.
Journalists would not much question whether leaders were telling the truth (which was, to be sure, the work of an elite and, at best, a provisional thing). Journalists would prove themselves, rather, by showing they were (presumably, like political leaders) successful in anticipating the manipulation of the poor shmucks who looked for, as pursuers of happiness will, "red meat."
What is starting to bug me particularly is that even NPR, which we pay in advance, seems utterly wrapped up in whether Obama can "close the sale." Yesterday, to take just one example, I heard a report on a talk-show I otherwise admire (have appeared on, and will not name, so that I can appear on it again) about why Hillary voters were still "angry" about "the process": One person interviewed told the host that giving Michigan's "undecided" votes to Obama was, in effect, an example of the party bosses cheating Hillary. The host might well have asked why Hillary alone had broken her promise, made along with all the other candidates, not to compete in Michigan, which violated party rules. But that would have implied that the story was whether Obama, or any candidate, was honorable. The story, silly me, was whether Obama is as competent a con as Hillary.I guess my real fear (and pride) is that Obama cannot compete on these terms. That he will have less trouble refuting McCain than bobbing-and-weaving around a press that sees itself as the arbiter of this disgusting, democratic competence. Can Obama prove to the "white working class" that he is not "an elitist"? Can he be "commander-chief"? Can he prove he is not "just a celebrity" who "speaks well"? Can he get people to stop seeing him as black or male or young or brilliant?
Listen for these stupid questions, or variations on them, especially on NPR, the best of the best, and ask yourself if any decent person will ever get elected again. OK, so the press pre-killed a liar's book this time. And somewhere around October 20, it will start tsk-tsking how the election is not about "issues." But the problem is not really Karl Rove and the Republican attack-machine. It is a press that seriously defines its job as the judge of who lies best, which commercials work, that is, in ways hired consultants like Rove cannot resist.
So I have a suggestion. Instead of using the money we've contributed to buy more ads, which nobody who's watched hundreds of thousands over the years believes anyway, perhaps Obama should run against the junk-culture itself, of which this kind of press "coverage" is a part. Why not just buy television time for open town-meetings, and speak also about the way we do politics? If he can speak honestly about race, can he not tap into our buried despair about a political culture run by cons and a press handicapping their performance? Is the long-term damage from warming air really of greater concern to ordinary citizens than the relentless closing of sales on the airwaves? Watch, again, Jon Stewart's (no relation to Mill) grilling of Chris Matthews, and ask yourself if this won't bring change we can believe in.
Anyway, Obama was never so inspiring as when, on Father's Day, he told a crowd in a black church that it was time for parents to shut the televisions. At least it is time to say why.
A counterargument by Josh Marshall from Jan. of this year; I just happened to be looking at it again for an unrelated reason:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/064384.php
and more is in his decade-old American Prospect article he quotes and links to there.
August 27, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
If political parties mediated the popular will, then, we could root for our side and leave the issues to the pols. But since the time of the Progressives (a bunch of damn Protestants*) political parties have been demonized and the independent, unmediated voter idolized.
Without a party to insure the satisfaction of their interests, those independent voters sure better research the issues and find out what the candidate proposes to do to them.
* As Protestants would say, "If you want to get to Heaven, you've got to study your Bible." Sometimes, it almost makes me admire priest-mediated Catholicism.
August 27, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just curious, how in the world did you find an archived post? I thought you had to google it, which would mean you would have to remember enough of the title to get it back.
I am in awe of your ability. Please share!
August 27, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'ville,
I definitely have to google something like that. But I have the benefit that I have posted on it in the past and then my user name is then on the same page. You have an usual user name so you have the same benefit: if it was a thread you were on and you can think of some keywords, you should find it relatively quickly, especially if you restrict the search to this website. (Use Google "advanced search" to restrict your search to http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com or http://talkingpointsmemo.com or same for Election Central or whatever.)
August 28, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
correction, should read: "you have an unusual user name".
August 28, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop whining.
The most unattractive feature of some old school Democrats is their miserable, doubt-ridden, "can't do", loser attitudes. Didn't you ever here the old saw about "When the going gets tough ..."? Man up, fool!
Obama has challenges. If you want him to win, and have some constructive suggestions to make about how he can do so, make them. If you don't, then shut up, keep your defeatist misery to yourself, and stop being part of the problem.
People like you are the ones who help Republicans spread the notion that Democrats are a bunch of pu****s, along with "effete snobs" and "nattering nabobs of negativity". If prominent Democratic supporters cave in, crouch in a fetal position, and start puling and sobbing about impending doom in the middle of a neck and neck race - at the end of August for heaven's sake! - what does that say about our character, perseverance and tenacity? You're making other Democrats and Obama supporters look bad. Stop.
It's particularly unattractive when people claim that the reason for their own failures is that they are so much smarter than the people who defeat them. As the old saying goes, if you're so smart, why ain't ya rich?
If Obama is as smart as you and I think he is, he will figure out how to use what he has to achieve victory, how to seize control of the media narratives, how to diminish John McCain's stature and how to counter all of the other challenges that concern you so much. I have tremendous confidence in Obama, who has profound political insight and skill to go along with the book smarts that alone seem to attract your admiration. Obama took some time off from a long race to re-energize, reflect and prepare this convention, and will now quickly get this thing headed in the right direction.
And if you don't like the character of American representative democracy, then why don't you spend more time in Israel? You're a citizen there too, aren't you?
This is one of the most pathetic displays of political frailty and pusillanimity I have ever read here on TPM Cafe. Utterly pathetic.
August 27, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll second that, big time.
Enough with the premature obituary writing already. TPM's obsession of late with obama-disappointment-syndrome is growing very tiring.
How 'bout if folks really support Obama, they stop the whiny hand-wringing and backseat driving on his campaign and actually do something -- ANYTHING -- themselves and work toward getting him elected? Help actually bake that cake rather than just sitting there prognosticating about what ingredients should be in it.
yeesh
August 27, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The most serious reason for queasiness is that I assumed, well, serious reason could squeak out a victory this time."
Surely you jest!
Can a serious student or even observer of politics think such naive thoughts? This is preciesly the elitist (yes elitist) mindset that has lost us elections time and again and yet you cling to your own elitism secure in the notion that A) your own prosperity doesn't actually depend upon who is in power, and B)that you are right and every decent, educated, thinking person knows it and that is what is important after all.
You prosper partly because of and get airtime on the very media you deplore. And then you won't name the program you are appalled by because you want to appear on it again. I'm sorry but that seems hypocritical to me. You then condemn junk "culture" instead of condemning the corporate money, power and influence that has produced it.
No doubt you are attracted to Obama because of his good mind and intellectual bent. You likely are very attracted to his thoughtful, but often long, boring answers and his contemplative manner. As a smart fellow you probably identify with those qualities of his personality because you have them too and there's nothing wrong with that per se. But the myopic viewpoint you express is a huge part of the problem we Democrats have in terms of winning elections.
Elections are what they are and they haven't changed much over time. They will never be the civil and enlightened process you no doubt pine away for. Elections are when we fight for control of the government and the power that goes with it instead of shooting eachother dead in the streets until one side surrenders (though I'll confess I sometimes dream of doing that so we can wipe the Republicans out once and for all). There's nothing elegant about the process of literally going to battle in order to control the government. I'd say I'll take the crass shallowness of our elections any day compared to that and if it takes communicating to the white working class then by God that's what we need to do instead of complaining that those unworthy people have to be addressed. They are our allies not our enemies and when prosperous, learned folk
express such disdain for them it is a danger to our party and our chances in the fall.
People see and sense this attitude oozing from many Democrats and that is why the Republican's heckling that Democrats and Obama in particular are "elitist" and "aloof" always stick: because of the many people who are those things and so freely express such contempt for the less educated, less affluent and the less priveleged among us.
August 27, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I read your very own words:
I had the same exact feelings about your opinion of the poster you were responding to -- contempt for the ideas expressed, regardless of the reason. I haven't seen many Democrats express negative connotations toward the less educated, less affluent and less priveledged; I think you have us confused with republicans, who believe if you are not rich it is because you don't deserve to be. Republicans believe you either are born to it, marry into it, or steal it (and of course hang onto it and increase it by not paying taxes; they are the only honorable ways to be wealthy. Those who aren't any of the above need to have more of a sense of individual responsibility to pay for their own insurance and retirement.
August 27, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry! I left out that the Republican's greatest contempt is for wealthy people who actually care about those who are less well-off. They went after John Edwards, who became wealthy but still cared about poverty -- "How could he DO THAT?" They asked-- it must be fake. The Kennedy's, who have shown through mutliple generations that they care about people who are needy, are DEMONIZED by republicans because they just truly dont' get it and so are suspicious. They don't mind taking advantage of their voting base (those they trap with wedge issues but don't do anything at all to help).
If they ever lost the ability to scare their pathetic voting base, they would have to hope they could find another planet, because this one would no longer be suited to their needs.
Their only hope is that the Rapture is not another fake -- that is my fervent hope too, because this earth will be so much better off if they would all just suddenly disappear.
August 27, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You miss the point but I'm not surprised.
If you haven't seen affluent well educated Democrats express contempt for working people, the less affluent and the poor you haven't been around very long or you haven't been paying attention. It's out there, it's been out there and you can deny it but that doesn't change the reality.
August 28, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
O hell - screw that! Let's cut right to the Philosopher King.
Maher is an insufferable little asshole who should be half as smart as he thinks he is.
I absolutely despise Liberal Elitism. Stop this! It is anti-thetic to democracy and I like democracy myself.
Jesus. What's next? Tests and poll taxes? You freakin idiots!
August 27, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, Hussein, let's have a southern contest. I'll start"
I'd like to buy Bill Maher for what he's worth and sell him for what he thinks he's worth!
Bill Maher has got an eeensy weeensy ....
Bless his heart!
August 27, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And hey! This is a great attitude for rolling back Women's Suffrage, voting rights for "minorities" and then let's go allll the way back: you have to be white, male and a property holder.
This kind of thinking is what leads to leftwing Dictatorships.
August 27, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And why for the love of heaven does anyone let a millionaire talking head like Bill Maher convince him of anything?
You are what you are criticizing, dude. Don't you get that?
August 27, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
bill mahre convinced me that bill maher is an idiot
does that count ???
August 28, 2008 4:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, guys. Bernard's complaints about the media are the same things people bitch and moan about here every day. He's not saying Obama shouldn't do what's necessary to win, or that he should make elitist-sounding excuses in the event he loses. s I understand him, he's just lamenting the obviously deteriorating state of our popular culture and the effect it has on a healthy democracy.
August 27, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
If someone in the media says something stupid, challenge it and fight back. If large segments of the media say consistently stupid things, challenge the whole lot of them and work hard on other ways of getting a winning message out. By all means, if you want to win the game, you've got to keep working the refs hard.
But Bernard is like the pouting kid who comes over to the sideline in the second quarter after a couple of bad calls and starts crying, "We can't win the game because everyone is against us!" He's a baby, who needs to take a seat on the bench for an attitude adjustment.
Given the closeness of the race, such an attitude is not only defeatist, unproductive and morally lazy; it's objectively stupid.
August 27, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bernard: I appreciate you saying intelligently what I was trying to say with this post on antoher thread... Barack needs to fight anything he can get his hands on, so why not destroy the media for aiding and abetting Bush/McCain... The MSM is Bush's 3rd Sidekick!
""Obama/Biden (or other Top 5 news grabber) should personally call into question FoxNews' legitimacy as a news organization. Make up a fight about the Media so they're self-conscious about attacking Obama (the MSM, at least, not Fox bc they don't care) and make it so people immediately begin to cast aside Fox's fakery.
FOX NEWS = WEEKLY WORLD NEWS""
August 27, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Roman times it was bread and circuses. In Lincoln's time the press peddled exciting lies to a degenerate public. Today is no different.
The intellectuals on the Left, forever frustrated in their lust for wealth and power, resolved the paradox of seeking equality for people they considered little better than dumb animals by inventing the dictatorship of the proletariat (which turned out to be one of the worst tyrannies invented by man).
Maybe you can do better...but I very much doubt it.
August 27, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh geez, shorter offensivetoyou: "blah blah blah."
Yeah, it's all the fault of the intellectuals of the left and their endless lust for wealth and power, like no one ever lusts for wealth and power. Let's be honest here: The right is even more naked in its lust for wealth and power, more violent and brutal in its acquisition of same, and monstrously more degenerate and evil.
Honestly, offensivetoyou might as well be Bernard writing under another nick, for all that posts dreary pseudo-musings.
August 27, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ DGValdron
Everyone lusts for wealth and power...but not everyone claims that all men are equal or should be equal, or that they are the friends of the poor and downtrodden.
August 27, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have noticed that more than ever, my friends and acquaintances are disgusted with network and cable news and are turning to CSpan for coverage of this convention. Every time we try to watch commentators, they say such stupid - and yes - uninformed things, that it is painful to listen. I think it is because the news outlets are part of the problem that Obama is running to change. They just can't understand the power of a grass roots candidacy, and even the intelligent ones keep looking for politics as usual. Never before has it been so obvious that they are trying to create the past, not looking or hearing at all what is happening right in front of their noses.
August 27, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whose despair? The "people" have no problem with this.
August 27, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
A minor correction. Maher was on CNN. It was Larry King who hurriedly called Mormonism "a great religion" after Maher disparaged it.
Despite my frequently spoken, but not delivered, advice to the Democratic consultant driven candidates, I don't have any more of a clue what will or will not work than they do.
The conventions ARE entertainment and more for the purpose of motivating the activists and rousting a few more volunteers from their slumber than for winning hearts and minds. It seems to affect those who are more excited by ritual and ceremony which accounts for the transitory bounces since that is most of us.
Elitism is saying "You are stupid." Not so when we complain that "We are stupid (i.e., irrational)
August 27, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember on cheers when Frasier recited Dickens's Tale of Two Cities to Norm & Cliff and the bar? He couldn't read the real story, he had to make something up abuot blood-thirsty clowns living in the sewers and killing everyone.
The bar LOVED it!
August 27, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
If hundreds of thousands of Progressives were actually united in a effective network or other organization,
instead of just mentally wanking off and whining at each other in that form of the Democratic Party Circular Firing Squad that is sometimes called "the netroots" (and I include myself and my daily 3-5 hour internet fix in this criticism),
they could begin the phone and protest campaign that would go after the national advertisers that support the Negative-Value-To-The-Planet mass media.
When their advertising revenue is affected by 15% or more, the networks will be able to react with significantly better coverage. It's not rocket science. It's putting our energy to work in a focused manner, as opposed to the disorganized, "every progressive for themself," Brownian motion that we seem to prefer.
August 27, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
did armando, nee bigtentdemocrat take over the tpm aparatus, or did somebody slip some nervous pills into your water ???
I agree with the guy who said GROW A SACK ALREADY
this place is turning into WHINER central
"oooooooohhhhh, the sky is falling cuz Obama wont take my excellent advice an he's gonna lose"
give it a fucking rest already
August 28, 2008 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your important, idea-filled contribution to the discussion of the issues Avishai raises. I especially liked how you refrained from name-calling. Very refreshing.
August 28, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you "progressives" should bring back the "literacy test" that was used in the old South to prevent certain groups of people from voting that the "Establishment" felt was not "qualified" to participate in the elections.
Or maybe you want to try a form of "simplified" democracy once popular in Eastern Europe in order to get the election outcomes you want: the single candidate election.
August 29, 2008 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink