Yesterday's post left me unsatisfied, still debating in my mind what it all means, or something. But then today a couple of things came to mind as I thought about how we will know when/if things really have changed. It came from a review I was reading in the Nation on three books dealing with the collapse of Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe, and from my memory of what the samizdat-era intellectuals in Poland or Czechoslovakia would say about how they pulled off their defiance of the state: "Live and act as if you are, in fact, free." So, what would the political discussion be like if real change were possible, if politicians felt they could tell the truth?
Specifically, as applied to these players in this environment, it would be okay for Obama (for instance) to discuss the political aspect of his thinking and decisions. He would be able to stipulate that there are members of the political establishment (in government, in the media) who take their positions based on simple calculations of power (them vs. us, Democrats vs. Republicans, etc.). It has nothing do with what's right, or patriotic, it's simply about winning or losing. As it is now, we're all acting like we're in a game that is all about politics, but if you say the word "politics" you lose. Why else would all our chattering class so assiduously avoid that discussion (along the lines of the point I made in yesterday's blog)?
I actually think it would humanize a lot of these figures to just admit that they are political animals. To hear John Boehner or Mitch McConnell parse the power struggle in political, rather than personal-slash-moral, terms make actually make them less creepy and off-putting. I suspect the same might be said about Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reed. There would still be room to get to moral issues, but always with the thought that some reporter is actually going to take it back to a political level and see how it all matches up.
If we all just agreed that politics is by definition a morality-free zone, maybe we wouldn't see so many public figures twisting themselves like pretzels, trying to make their statements about values and morality align with their public statements on topics like capital punishment and the highest incarceration rate in the civilized world, the rewards of corporate malfeasance, high unemployment and rising output efficiency, the moral hazard of universal health care, public education for those who can afford it, and tax cuts for the wealthy.
And we could hear Obama tell the cadets at West Point that this country is perfectly willing to accept the fact some of them will not be coming back from Afghanistan -- "no offense, it's just politics. I'd just as soon not take this step, but let's get real, I wouldn't be able to eat lunch in this town if I tried to do that."
On the other hand, the pundits would hate it. Their whole schtick is based on applying their own personal political filter to whatever happens. They're the ones who get to tell us what any statement or action means in terms of who has got the juice, who's winning, who's losing, play by play, minute by minute. Having the politicians themselves lay that out would only add to the unemployment rolls. That would be a shame, wouldn't it?
I mean, who am I kidding? The chance of politicians talking like that is like the chance of David Vitter telling us he really feels about wearing diapers. Sorry. But you get the point. Politics is not about telling any kind of truth. Inside the beltway, it's like if you do tell the truth you lose respect, you show weakness and invite the other alphas to go for blood, your blood.
The real irony is that some of your power in the beltway environment is also derived from how you appear outside the beltway, where truth telling, or the appearance of truth telling, has value. In fact, if there is one characteristic that typifies the really successful politicians (in terms of getting elected against better-known political brands) of the last 40-plus TV years -- JFK, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama -- it is the singular, and rare, quality of "Truthiness."
Well said.
ReplyDelete