 Point. Click. Search. Contents: Archives:
| ||
 by Bob Somerby bobsomerby@hotmail.com E-mail This Page  A companion site. | ||
|
 Caveat lector 28 April 2000 Our current howler (part II): Passover
Was Bush sincere in his new stand on gays? We don't have the foggiest notion. Here at THE HOWLER, we don't employ sooth-sayers, mind-readers, psychics or oracles, or even priests who can read the flight of birds. Only the big news orgs do that. But we couldn't help noticing, in the wake of Bush's meeting, that many pundits were impressed with his outlook. On Late Edition the following Sunday, Wolf Blitzer brought up the topic:
Blitzer then played tape of Bush saying he was "a better person for the meeting." We note that Blitzer explicitly said it: Bush did something he'd once said he wouldn't. At THE HOWLER, we're glad that Bush held this meeting; we think it was the right thing to do. But a press corps that can be extremely cynical on flip-flops didn't say "Boo" about Bush's new stand. Steve Roberts said Bush has "a real problem [with the religious right], but I think he handled it well this week." There wasn't a naughty word on sincerity or motive until Tucker Carlson said this:
Carlson may have been suggesting a bit of a pander. But Blitzer wasn't thinking that way. "He obviously learned something," Blitzer said, and then moved on to the next topic. He did? He obviously learned something? Why was it "obvious" that Bush had learned something, and wasn't just saying he had? What could have made this "obvious?" As our readers know, we prefer not to speculate about the motives of pols, and we most certainly do not assert that Bush was insincere. But Blitzer's conclusion wasn't "obvious" at all—and it made quite a contrast to the frenzy going on about Gore's "obvious" insincerity about Elian. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to find cynical thoughts about Bush's new, improved outlook. At the Times, Alison Mitchell even went out of her way to say that Bush hadn't changed any positions. This was, at best, a severe stretch (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/27/00). Jonathan Rauch wrote a stinging op-ed, accusing The Dub of bad motives and flip-flops. But even as the press corps routinely assured us that Gore had gruesome motives on Elian, no one else really said a word to question the governor's "move to the center." Why was that? What follows here is pure speculation, but one answer might go as follows. The celebrity press corps is generally sympathetic to the interests of gays and lesbians (as we think is completely appropriate). And we've noticed before that, in the wonderful world of motive-ascription, our pundits tend to say folks have bad motives when they disagree with the pol on the merits. Who has defended Gore's motives on Elian? The occasional conservative scribe. There was Fred Barnes, just Wednesday night, defending the veep on Special Report; and there was Michael Barone, no lefty he, playing some Hardball one night earlier. A talker recited a dog-eared premise. You've heard it a thousand times before:
Most pundits have showcased their inordinate skill at reciting the Official, Approved Answer. But this night, Barone took a walk:
Such statements have been few and far between. The script has been perfectly clear on this matter; Al Gore has pandered on Elian. As we'll see next Tuesday, pundits have shown a numbing ability to go on TV and recite the party line. Could Castro's minions be more slavish than these nmemnists in our celebrity press corps? But this night, rebellion filled the air. Carl Bernstein went a step too far, following up on what Barone said:
Heresy! It almost sounded like Bernstein might be saying that Bush could be pandering too! The talker quickly switched the subject to more acceptable fields of inquiry. Soon, he was back to scripts that would please his viewers. "Does Al Gore ever do anything just because it's the right thing to do?" he asked. Bernstein's comment could have taken us in an intriguing direction. Though one would have a hard time learning it on cable TV, Bush and Gore have identical positions on Elian; each one favors granting permanent legal residency so the case can go into family court. (Bush announced for legal residency in late January; Gore, who favored using family courts all along, announced for legal residency two months later.) But Gore is routinely denounced for "pandering;" the question is rarely asked about Bush. Is Bush's position sincerely held? Or are he and his party just after votes, too? Wednesday night, that incredible question was actually asked as Chuck Lane played some Hardball. A talker began with the standard script. You've heard it a thousand (and one) times before:
Snore! Note that the talker completely ignored what Barone had said one night earlier. He continued:
Lane made a foolish move. He was on Hardball. But he still tried to answer:
Have we ever mentioned that guests on this show don't get to give long-winded answers? Lane continued—we delete one further interruption by the host—and he brought up that point about Bush:
Really! Imagine that! Well trained in the camps that the Thought Police runs, the talker knew just what to do with Lane's comment. He simply turned to a different guest, and asked if Gore's pander might work. Bush and Gore hold identical positions. But Gore has been constantly slammed for a pander; with Bush, it rarely comes up. Part of the reason may involve what Barone told the talker on Tuesday. According to Barone, "many people" have misstated basic facts about Gore's stand on the Elian matter. And it's true: Many pundits don't seem to know the basic facts in this scripted debate. They know all about what the hopefuls think. They rarely seem to know what they've said.
Monday: Charlie and Stu knew the hopefuls' motives. They didn't seem to know what they've said. Save the discourse: The analysts were roaring on Wednesday morning; they agreed with Michael Kelly! In his opening paragraph, Kelly noted that the Miami raid had actually "risked [Elian's] life." We too were struck by how dangerous the raid had been, given the fact that there was (in Kelly's words) "no excuse of imminent danger to Elian." But soon, our new axis unraveled. Sure enough—Kelly adopted the strange construction we had singled out earlier in the week (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/24/00):
Say what? Elian might be expected to stick with his request? Elian—"plaintiff"—is six years old. As sane people all over the country will know, Elian couldn't have made such a request. And he can't "stick with it" (or renounce it), either. Again we see the irrational air suffusing the Elian commentary. On Monday, Peggy Noonan took the cake—and in the process, she also explained it. You'll think that we're making this up:
But then, he was a man. [End of article] Noonan, of course, had not tried to show that anyone dismissed the dolphin story as "Christian kitsch." As with her recent appearance on Special Report, Noonan simply invented the facts her case needed. But in this passage, Noonan trashes a president in the most personal terms for not considering the possibility that a miracle had occurred, sending a signal on how he should act. Because Clinton presumably didn't make that calculation, Noonan says he isn't "a man." Should a president actually consider such factors in making important decisions? Noonan doesn't just imply that he should; she trashes Clinton, quite personally, for not doing so. And so you see the source of the oddness—this turns out, again, to be All About Clinton. And in the eyes of a critic as upset as Noonan, the failure to consider the (reported; interpreted) actions of dolphins now shows us that Bill's not "a man." Is Reno's decision open to question? Absolutely—we found it quite risky. But Noonan's comment is simply disturbed. It's dangerous for our discourse and our comity—it's actually dangerous for the health of our republic—when highly-placed people can somehow think that bizarre judgments like this one make sense. |