Why U.S. Politics Suck
When people talk about “programmed” candidacies and carefully parsed statements designed to offend no one, they forget the reasons for such things. It isn’t cowardice so much as fear of a media machine so desperate for controversy that they will leap at any opening they get. There are two examples from the last week that illustrate this, and illustrate why we get the campaigns and candidates we do.
Let’s start with the Joe Biden - Barack Obama nonsense. In an interview with the New York Observer, Joe Biden made the following (clearly off-the-cuff) remark:
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
Here’s the problem: the quote is not accurate. I heard the actual statement, which a)includes the word “sorta” before mainstream, which reinforces the off-hand nature of the remark and b) there is a pause after “African-American”. Now you say, what’s the big deal about the omission of a pause? By not accounting for it in the written version, it indeed does look like he is saying that previous black candidates were not articulate – as ridiculous a statement as is humanly possible. That is why Obama was able to react the way he did. If you account for the pause, either by (pause) or by inserting a simple comma, it is much clearer that the rest of the description applies to Obama and is not meant to be derogatory to others. By not doing it, you make a compliment to Obama seem like a slam at every other black candidate. Anyone who honestly thinks that Joe Biden thinks that Jesse Jackson, Carol Moseley Braun, and Al Sharpton were not articulate is a fool. What interests me is why Obama would choose that specific word to respond to and why Biden would immediately get down on his knees rather than respond by attacking the writer of the piece and the judgment of anyone who would think he actually said that. Biden may be more careful in the future about talking to reporters, which would be a shame. This is why candidates are very careful in every word they say and it weakens our real view of these people.
Which brings us to Hillary’s joke. I am not the world’s biggest Hillary Clinton fan, but the reaction to her “I know about dealing with bad men” joke is frighteningly unfair. She made a joke, a good, smart joke, delivered with perfect timing. As a former comedy writer, I appreciate that skill, as did the audience, since she got a big laugh with it. Did the press react by praising her sense-of-humor? Did they appreciate her understanding the irony of her own life and career? No – they got their panties in a bunch and leaped into an inquisition about “Hillary is attacking Bill”. I rarely feel sorry for her, but when the most meticulous and programmed candidate ever says something witty, we should be thankful; yet here she was, defending herself for making a joke. Of course, in typical Hillary fashion, she backed off the joke, saying she wasn’t really talking about Bill. I want a President with a sense of humor, who can make a joke which might be reflective of the irony of life. You can do self-deprecating humor, and in front of your own people, you can do some generalized joke about the other party, but real wit is dangerous. We get the campaigns we deserve and the type of unimaginative candidates who can restrict themselves to rehearsed moments.
Let’s start with the Joe Biden - Barack Obama nonsense. In an interview with the New York Observer, Joe Biden made the following (clearly off-the-cuff) remark:
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
Here’s the problem: the quote is not accurate. I heard the actual statement, which a)includes the word “sorta” before mainstream, which reinforces the off-hand nature of the remark and b) there is a pause after “African-American”. Now you say, what’s the big deal about the omission of a pause? By not accounting for it in the written version, it indeed does look like he is saying that previous black candidates were not articulate – as ridiculous a statement as is humanly possible. That is why Obama was able to react the way he did. If you account for the pause, either by (pause) or by inserting a simple comma, it is much clearer that the rest of the description applies to Obama and is not meant to be derogatory to others. By not doing it, you make a compliment to Obama seem like a slam at every other black candidate. Anyone who honestly thinks that Joe Biden thinks that Jesse Jackson, Carol Moseley Braun, and Al Sharpton were not articulate is a fool. What interests me is why Obama would choose that specific word to respond to and why Biden would immediately get down on his knees rather than respond by attacking the writer of the piece and the judgment of anyone who would think he actually said that. Biden may be more careful in the future about talking to reporters, which would be a shame. This is why candidates are very careful in every word they say and it weakens our real view of these people.
Which brings us to Hillary’s joke. I am not the world’s biggest Hillary Clinton fan, but the reaction to her “I know about dealing with bad men” joke is frighteningly unfair. She made a joke, a good, smart joke, delivered with perfect timing. As a former comedy writer, I appreciate that skill, as did the audience, since she got a big laugh with it. Did the press react by praising her sense-of-humor? Did they appreciate her understanding the irony of her own life and career? No – they got their panties in a bunch and leaped into an inquisition about “Hillary is attacking Bill”. I rarely feel sorry for her, but when the most meticulous and programmed candidate ever says something witty, we should be thankful; yet here she was, defending herself for making a joke. Of course, in typical Hillary fashion, she backed off the joke, saying she wasn’t really talking about Bill. I want a President with a sense of humor, who can make a joke which might be reflective of the irony of life. You can do self-deprecating humor, and in front of your own people, you can do some generalized joke about the other party, but real wit is dangerous. We get the campaigns we deserve and the type of unimaginative candidates who can restrict themselves to rehearsed moments.
posted by Barry Rubinowitz at 10:24 AM
2 Comments:
Just because campaign finance laws haven't always had the desired result doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I doubt there is a real solution out there, but we can still look for one.
I think CAFE standards should apply to cars, SUV's, light trucks, everything except 16-wheelers. And they should be raised dramatically and fast,
As for increasing the gas tax to pay for health care -- I am opposed to that philosophically and politically. Gasoline taxes have long long been considered users fees, designed to pay for road upkeep, expansion, and other transportation-related expenses. We have stretched this to include alternative transit needs, such as mass transit, which is in the same realm and can be said to not just provide alternatives for drivers but , by taking some cars off the road, makes their drives easier. To increase the taxes on drivers to pay for a different use is utterly unfair, totally regressive, and political suicide for the party that backs it. Why should a working class guy living in the western half of the country, who has to drive 20 miles to work, have to pay a tax to subsidize the health care of a subway rider in NY? This is the kind of East Coast Liberal thinking that has caused the Democrats so much trouble out west. If the party were to adopt that as policy, the Democratic candidate for President would lose every western state except CA -- and we would be in play. It would not lessen the profit of the oil companies at all, it would just wreak havoc in the economy of at least half the country and maybe all of it, due to increased prices in shipping.
What you are proposing is a "sin tax" on gasoline, as we have them on cigarettes and alcohol. The problem is that people can choose to not smoke or drink (and I have some philosophical problem with sin taxes as well, but that's not the point here), but people in much of this wide-open country have to drive. It's very easy for those of you living on the east coast to advocate this, sort of like a non-smoker being for higher cigarette taxes, but for the rest of us, this is onerous and unfair. It's true that property and sin taxes are used for many things, but they are used locally. If CA, AZ, or WY want to pass a gasoline tax and keep the money for local projects, that's fine. But for the Federal government to take our money and spend it on a program totally unrelated to automobile usage is just wrong.
Of course, this argument is all theoretical, as anyone advocating such a tax will never be elected President, since he or she will not win any state west of Ohio. If this is a stealth concept, never mentioned in a campaign, the Democrats will lose the Senate immediately and probably the House soon after.
For the record, California has the strictest emissions standards in the country, requiring a specially formulated gasoline which is more expensive. We also have the highest percentage of high-mileage vehicles in the country. To increase our taxes would be an unconscionable burden and I would favor secession were it to happen.
Post a Comment
<< Home