THE SCIENCE OF DISTRACTION! This must stop, Obama said, describing the past twenty years: // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, AUGUST 29, 2008
THE ART OF NOVELIZATION: We were surprised by Jonathan Weismans short novel in this mornings Washington Post. Heres how he started his top-of-the-front-page news report in the Posts early edition:
We were surprised by that highlighted passage. Wed just spent four nights discussing the ways Obama has dealt with issues of race in this campaign. In the wake of those discussions, we were surprised to read that he arrived at Invesco praising the black leaders who paved his way. And sure enough! When we read Weismans full report, it looked like hed pretty much made that part up! There was such no quotation from Obama. In fact, there was no real explanation of what that passage meant.
Its the science of novelization! Presumably, it sounded good to Weisman (or to some editor)as it sounds good at cocktail parties attended by a certain class. So Weisman (or an editor) threw it in. No, it doesnt seem to have occurred. But readers, we ask you: So what?
Last night, we enjoyed, for the second night, the chance to discuss such matters with (young) Loyola College assistant professor Eric Durham. (A 30-year-old Texas Aggie.) Our take: Sounds to us like this energetic guy is puzzling out the frontiers of race in America. And, of course, it sounds to us like Weisman made something up.
Technically accurate: Heres the sub-headline on Weismans piece, running across the top of page one: Historic Moment Is Called a Testament to Martin Luther Kings Vision/As Democrats Close Convention With a Sense of Unity and Celebration. That headline, which runs across page one, has the advantage of being technically accuratethough wed say its grossly misleading. (Principal headline: 80,000 Pack Stadium to Hear Obama Accept Nomination.) In our view, by the way, Dr. King was the great moral giant of the last century.
In its own early edition, the New York Times did a better job of sticking to things which actually happened, and presenting those things in an accurate perspective. Their headline, across the top of page one: Scorning Bush Years, Obama Takes Aim at McCain. Each report worked from the pre-released text of Obamas speech.
THE SCIENCE OF DISTRACTION: We havent yet seen Obamas speech; finishing our four-night stint at Morgan States WEAA-FM, we only heard the speech last night. And among the things we learned this week, wed include this: Listening to a speech can be quite different from actually getting to see it. That said, we awoke this morning to hear Pat Buchanan praising it as the greatest convention speech ever given. (We exaggerate a bit, but only slightly.) But then, despite a few stumbles, Buchanan has been a fair, savvy pundit throughout this White House campaign.
Lets start with something we didnt like, then consider Obamas challenge to the science of distraction.
Listening to Obama, we didnt like this. To be honest, this just isnt accurate:
Please. In fact, McCain didnt define middle-class as someone making under $5 million a year. In the past decade, weve seen many people misinform average voters; we dont think Big Dems should follow that lead. A few other parts of Obamas critique of McCain were less than wonderfully accurate. Our view: At this point, if we have to massage the facts to make our case, theres something bad wrong about us.
So that would be what we didnt like. But then, we heard Obama say this, as part of a much longer passage in which he threw down the gauntlet to McCain, saying, in effect, Bring it on:
Returning to the United States framework which drove his speech at the 2004 convention, Obama rejected the science of distraction. This science has driven assaults on Big Dems for the past twenty years.
It has made a joke of our discourse.
Obama spoke of patriotism, because thats the form the assault has been taking as it gets marshaled against him. But this science has taken various forms in those past twenty years. For the most part, Democratic Party officials and career liberal leaders have responded by looking away.
Do you care to remember this science? Lets go there:
In 1988, the attack against Dukakis involved issues of patriotismand even alleged mental illness. Good grief! In September 1988, Charles Krauthammer wrote this in the Post: George Bush's Pledge of Allegiance shtick, designed to impugn Michael Dukakis' patriotism, is a model of campaign cynicism. Yes, that was written by Krauthammer! (In August 1988, President Reagan jokingly helped drive the rumor that Dukakis had a mental health problem.)
From 1992 on, the attacks against the Clintons would be endless, inexcusable, uglyand widely ignored by our cowering leaders. Good God! By August 1999, two major cable programs would actually bring Gennifer Flowers on the air to discussfirst for a half-hour, then for an hourthe long list of troubling murders in which both Clintons had played a part. We complained about thatand no one else did. To this day, we have never found evidence that any mainstream journalist said a single word about this astounding misconductastounding misconduct on the part of Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity.
By that thing, the law was clear: You could say any g*ddamn thing you pleasedas long as you aimed it at Dems.
In 1999, they started on Gore, reinventing him as the worlds biggest liar. They lied in the publics face for two yearsand Bush ended up in the White House. As all this happened, the cowering children at your liberal journals piddled in their pants; averted their gaze; and let the endless deceptions roll on. Again this week, Jonathan Alter told us that Gore never said he invented the Internet. He forgot to tell us why he said different in real time, back when it actually mattered.
In 2004, they came for Kerry. After the Swift boat attacks began, Michael Kinsley managed to write one column on the topicand that piece was whimsical, tongue-in-cheek. (Headline: The Stiff Drink Vets break their silence. August 29. 2004. Darlings! So amusing!) Well discuss this column in more detail when we continue our current series next week. For the first two parts of the series, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/26/08.
This has been a quick history of a science, a science which has been endlessly tolerated by the pseudo-liberal world. As we all know (but still wont say), were in Iraq because liberal leaders agreed to avoid confronting this science. Last night, in his own remarks, Gore discussed this sordid history, in which our side agreed to pretend that it didnt much matter who won the White House. Last night, at Invesco:
Thats what happens when the career liberal world agrees to ignore this grim science.
So last night, Obama threw down the gauntlet. Before the fall campaign began, he offered the public a framework for viewing the campaigns contents. Some distractions concerning Obama have involved issues that smack of patriotism; last night, he said the times are too serious to allow such distractions to prosper. And trust us: Obama had to do this himself. If we had all waited a thousand years, the career liberal world and the Dem Party leadership would never have managed to do this. They would never have offered the public this helpful framework Powerful players will try to distract you from things that actually matter.
Essentially, thats what Obama said. And he said it has to stop.
It doesnt have to stop, of course, just because weve been handed this framework. But now that Obama himself has said this, fiery fellows at your liberal journals may decide to repeat what he said. You see, these are the types of fiery players who wait until its safe before speaking. They like repeating what others have saidpreferably, somebody famous.
What Hawthorne said: When we think of the harm thats been done by this science, we think of Rappaccinis Daughter. Mr. Price made us read it in high school. Heres the way it ends:
Through the years, that ending has stuck in our heads. Last night, Gore described the upshot of another experiment, in another vile science.
The fruit of poisonous plants: Where was Wikipedia when we needed it? From the sites very helpful plot summary:
An unethical experiment? With poisonous plants? Ignoring the call that the work must be shunned? Readers, when have you seen a more accurate portrait of the politics of the past twenty years?