A KINGS HEIGHTENED DRAMA! Frankly, Rich encouraged warthe war your side tends not to win: // link // print // previous // next //
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2008
FRUM/MADDOW: Oh what the heck. Frum-Maddow has disappeared beneath the wavesbut we said wed voice our reaction (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/15/08). Therefore, well say this:
When someone from the other side agrees to trash his party and his candidates, your side has already won. It doesnt make sense to try to win bigger (as Maddow, to a slight extent, seemed to do in her introduction). It makes more sense to accept your winto extend a gesture to the person who is willing to trash his own side.
Frum said these things on Maddows show:
Before he even appeared on the show, Frum had made similar statements. That already counts as a major win for the Dem Party side.
To our ear, Frum and Maddow both made sensible if imperfect statements during Monday evenings discussion. We didnt think that either side wonand we didnt think it was constructive when KO announced Maddows monster win the next evening. Wed have liked to see the conversation continue, on some other occasion.
Polling has made it clear for some time: If we could agree to drop the politics of cultural resentment, the side youre on would most often win. Indeed, the politics of cultural resentment was dreamed up by the other side to counter that very fact.
PART 2A KINGS HEIGHTENED DRAMA: It was the first thing we read in this mornings Postand it illustrates the problem. Yes, Thomas Boswell was writing about sportsabout a subject we pursue for pure fun. But quickly, he heightened the sense of the drama surrounding the Rays and the Red Sox:
Well, OK. But in fact, the odds against what the Sox have done (eight straight wins of this type) stand at 256-to-1. But why say that, when you can cite odds of about 1,000-to-1thereby letting you say incredible, thereby making your story more thrilling? We only talk about baseball for fun. But Boswell heightened the drama as he imagined what might yet occur.
But uh-oh! Colbert King also heightened the drama in todays Postbut he was discussing the most serious topic in all of American politics. King was discussing race and race hatred. But even as he started his piece, the gent was embellishing wildly:
With this rhetorical sleight of hand, an unfortunate shout by one single person slid into the battle cry of a lynch mob. Having granted himself that advantage, King soon rendered a judgment which was, on its face, just absurd:
KING (continuing directly): Some observers claim that the proposed killing was directed not toward Barack Obama but at Bill Ayers, the co-founder of the radical Weather Underground that bombed public buildings during the turbulent Vietnam era. Ayers, now a college professor who has served with Obama and other noted Chicagoans in civic enterprisesand hosted a campaign event for Obama's initial run for the state legislatureis being portrayed by John McCains campaign as Barack's bosom buddy, the facts notwithstanding.
Surely, King cant really believe that. He cant believe that an unfortunate call by one nameless person represents a dangerous new low in American politics. King had massively heightened his drama in these first three paragraphsbut he wasnt talking about baseball (where kill the umpire is a famous old cry). He was talking about our most serious subjectand doing so quite irresponsibly. Quickly, more sleight of hand:
In our view, Palins conduct has been inexcusableas has that of McCains campaign. But King glided past the misconduct of the principals, instead inventing a rabid audience, one whose ugliness is stunning. In fact, this is an ugly, inept brand of journalism. And its bad for progressive interests.
Why is this bad for progressive interests? First, because you simply cant build a progressive politics from the desire of people like King to overstate, mislead and inflame. King makes no factual misstatements here, as liberal leaders have frequently done in the excited march toward November (new examples on Monday). Everything he says can be defended as technically accurateor as a statement of opinion, however baldly absurd. But Kings rhetoric encourages, almost demands, leaps of logicencourages readers to think that one mans cry makes everyone around him rabid (and perhaps ugly). We were specifically taught not to write or think this way in the ninth grade (by Peter Drobac). But people like King never stop.
Why is this bad for progressive politics? First, because you simply cant build a progressive politics from the desire of people like King to make average people dumber. Its dumb to think that one mans cry turns thousand of others into a lynch mobinto a rabid audience whose ugliness is stunning. But beyond that, writing like this keeps a culture war going. The pseudo-right invented this culture war, because it can win no other way.
Why is work like this bad for progressive politics? Because many people will see the unfairness of Kings loud criesand their hearts will harden accordingly. They will harden in their sense that there is no harbor for them on the leftin their sense that there is no reason to listen to liberal or mainstream complaints about the conduct of McCain and Palin. Some of those people would have seen what is wrong in the conduct of McCain and Palinif King had bothered to dirty his hands explaining the misconduct to them. But they will recoil at the sheer absurdity of this columns rhetoriceven as pseudo-liberal hearts are warmed. This leaves us caught in that culture warthe war the other side wants.
As a general matter, nothing is dumber than fighting on turf the other side has chosen. And thats what pseudo-liberals do when they keep this culture war goingalong with its familiar handmaiden, the journalism of perfect dumbness.
Why did the pseudo-right invent this warinvent the politics and journalism of dumbness? Because it cant win on more traditional grounds, in which you stick to facts and logic, to saner types of assessment. The main thing wrong with what King writes today is its dumbnessits blatant lack of fair assessment. Beyond that, it keeps us from a saner discussiona discussion in which, all polling shows, the more progressive side would most often win.
But then, that is just what Frank Rich was doing in last Sundays column. Remember? Rich started as emperors like to dowith an absurd misstatement:
In fact, there was no time, at the start of this race, when it seemed preposterous that any black man could be a serious presidential contenderand Rich of course understand this (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/13/08). Rich invented that claima preposterous claimbecause it would heighten his drama. Soon, he was saying this:
Does Rich confess to that reaction? To us, it sounds more like a boast. Did Obama get his Secret Service detail earlier than any presidential candidate in our history? In fact, thats almost accurate. But note the culture of pseudo-journalism as it emerges in that last paragraph. Preceding King by five days, Rich lets himself enjoy his portrait of those raucous McCain-Palin rallies, in which (after offering other embellishments) he reports the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets.
Unfortunately, its Rich whos engaged in uninhibited slinging there. This claim is based on the Milbank sketch, the one to which King referredbut Milbank only described one person offering one such epithet (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/8/08). But ah, the power of pluralization! Instead of one person saying one stupid thing, we now have uninhibited slinging of racial epithetsand an ongoing culture war, driven by Richs deceptions.
A great deal was wrong with Richs column last Sunday. This was unfortunate, because, as we noted, his basic premise was perfectly accurate. The McCain campaign was trying to make voters think of Obama as some species of terroristas a pal to terrorists, as a supporter of terrorists, as someone who lies about ties to terrorists. (Rich specifically noted the way Palin pluralized that wordnote the plural noun, he warnedafter he had pluralized his! Frankly, thats classic Rich.) Many voters would have seen the problem with McCain and Palins behaviorif Rich had made the case. Instead, he spent a great deal of time embellishing claims about McCain and Palins supportersthus sustaining a large culture war. By today, King barely mentions the gross misconduct engaged in by McCain and Palin. Instead, hes eager to draw a pleasing portrait, in which one mans cry melds into that of a mob, in which we are absurdly said to have attained a dangerous new low in American politics.
The first problem with Rich and King is this: Theyre basically deceiving their readers. Last Sunday, Rich began with a bald misstatement; today, King starts with gross sleight of hand. And noyou cant build progressive politics from the desire of upper-caste types to mislead readers. Few readers will be positioned to know the various ways theyre being played. Last Sunday, Rich lied to readers as he began. But few readers could possibly know that.
The second problem here is larger. Pseudo-liberals who sustain the culture war are playing the game the other side chose. In modern polling, progressive positions tend to win; for that reason, the other side chose to wage an endless, damn-fool war. In effect, youve assembled the worlds best baseball teamand Rich and King keep agreeing to play football.
The headline on Kings column today says it all: A Rage No One Should Be Stoking. Under that headline, King stokes ragea rage that furthers the game plan devised by the other side.
One last thought about Richs column: Its obscene when people like Rich spread fantasies about someone else getting murdered. We have no idea what sorts of dreams lead lone nuts to engage in political killing. But at the start of that column, Rich was telling those lone nuts that they can break a political movements heart with one act of ugly violence. Do such dreams encourage crackpots to act? Like you, we dont have the slightest idea. But precisely because no one knows such things, sensible people have long agreed not to speak about such matters, unless such speech is clearly required. For example, we all recall the frenzy from last Junethe phony, staged, bogus frenzy about the deeply troubling thing Hillary Clinton so plainly hadnt said.
Rich was preening and posing last weekabout someone elses murder. Its par for the course from this horrible manwho started you off last Sunday with bald-faced misstatement, as he so constantly does. People like Rich seem to live for the dramaand for the misstatements which heighten the drama. It has always been fun to enflame the rubes. Throughout history, the Riches have done it.
Where King ends: Yes, McCain could still win this race. As he refers to some racist and foolish voters, heres how King understands that fact:
King offers a stark contrast here. Those voters may be part of a dwindling breedor they may represent todays America. In fact, theyre almost surely part of a dwindling breed. And of course, to some extent, they do represent todays America.
If McCain wins, Obama wont likely stoke the rage thats being stoked today in Kings column. But through their impoverished rhetoric, King and Rich almost surely will. Theyll keep insisting on culture waron the war the other side chose, the war you tend not to win.