For several weeks in a row there have been headlines like "Bush Approval Rating Hits New Low." This week, it was CNN's turn to break the news, with a poll showing just 32 percent who like the president's performance and 60 percent who do not.
Poll numbers like this give Democrats hope. In fact, most Democratic hopes lately have come from their opponents' vices and not their own virtues.
November will be the last time that voters can punish George Bush and I expect they will. I think that, however, is close to the limit of Democratic hopes for the medium-term future. Their progress will be determined by Republican regress.
My hunch is that Democrats will capture House and Senate seats but not the House or Senate. And if they do, the victory will be fleeting and they will do poorly in 2008.
That's a hunch, no more, and I admit it. But I felt it as a certainty when I read a column by The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne this week. Dionne was arguing with a fellow liberal who wrote what the Democrats need to do is destroy today's "radical individualism" and replace it with "a politics of a "common good." That's fine, Dionne said, but we need to hear "more about self-interest, rightly understood."
That phrase made me cringe. It still does.
"Self-interest, rightly understood" is a fancy-pants way of saying, "I know what is in your interest better than you do." It is, in my view, a politically stupid and morally diseased position. Democrats, by temperament, are slightly more susceptible to it than Republicans.
I do not mean to condemn Dionne for a phrase. But I will. It reminded me of something written on the very first page of a book that lots of Democrats think is absolutely brilliant, "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank.
In the third paragraph of his book, Frank writes: "People getting their fundamental interests wrong is what American political life is all about." That, too, is a fancy-pants way of saying: "I know what is in your interest better than you do."
Franks spends the rest of his book explaining why the people of Kansas go against their obvious self-interest and vote for Republicans and not Democrats. His explanations are fascinating and interesting. His premise is intellectually totalitarian.
That may strike you as a rather extreme denunciation. It is, so I'll explain why, in my view, thinking that you know what is in other people's best interests is perhaps the worst political impulse that good people commonly have.
Actually, that is an easy task because it has already been done for the ages and to perfection by the British historian and essayist Isaiah Berlin. In 1958, he delivered a talk he entitled "Two Concepts of Liberty." It became one of the most influential essays in political philosophy written in English in the 20th century.
There are two kinds of liberty, negative and positive. Negative liberty is freedom "from" things; positive liberty is freedom "to do" certain things. Berlin describes how these notions of liberty have been put to very different uses in history and how each concept attracts a different kind of political soul.
Negative liberty means simply that one is free from interference by the state and others, that one has a zone of liberty and in that zone there can be no interference so long as another's liberty isn't constrained. What you do in the zone of negative liberty is your business.
Positive liberty takes a dim view of simple negative liberty, arguing that it is meaningless unless a person has a real, positive freedom - the power "to do" vital things. Being left alone, in the world view, is meaningless if you don't have the power "to do" the important things, whatever they may be get an education, earn a fair wage, live in an alienated society.
Negative liberty is the ethos of classic liberalism, not 'liberalism' in the partisan sense that the word is typically used in America today. Its essence is, "I know what's best for me, leave me alone."
Positive liberty, according to Berlin, is the ethos of idealism and great political dreams. Not content with "leave me alone liberalism," the positive libertarian thinks people must have the power to do and be certain things in order to be free in "meaningful" ways.
What are those things? Well, they are not things you can know for yourself in your zone of liberty. They are things that were well-understood by great minds like Hegel, Rousseau and Marx. The great impulse of positive liberty is: "I know what is best for you."
That impulse, in history and in personality, is elitist and, at its worst, totalitarian. It is the impulse that allows Marxists, Communists, theocrats and nationalists to curtail negative liberties and slaughter people all in the name of their own best interests.
America, of course, is the model community of negative liberty. It's a country explicitly founded on its principles. Arguments about the exact frontiers of liberty will be infinitely and ferociously debated.
The American political temperament, I think, has been molded over the centuries to have an uncanny ability to sniff out and reject the personality, if not the precise policies, of positive liberty and its voice, which says: "I know what's best for you."
Both political parties have impulses in both directions.
Republican policies that echo the voices of positive liberty include public religiosity, laws to have the state and not individuals control abortion, No Child Left Behind and the conquering of Iraq in the name of bringing Iraqis the freedom they didn't know they wanted.
Democrats are more likely to want to regulate what you eat and drink, dismiss the property rights that are infringed by taxation, declare that economic goals are rights or entitlements, and try to legislate more economic equality.
As the quotes from Thomas Frank and E.J. Dionne show, a defining impulse or attitude of many Democrats and liberals today is that Americans, because of evil manipulations by Republicans, do not know what is best for them and the party's job is to show them the light.
That is a temperament, and one which is not easily discernible in policy papers and campaign platforms. But voters can smell it a mile away. And lately, they think it stinks.
How did this ray of light manage to slip through the MSM cracks?
#2
"...just 32 percent who like the president's performance and 60 percent who do not."
This poll may be being generous: At least 30% (LLL) certainly think Bush is way too conservative, and I figure he has alienated that many conservatives with his position on stuff like immigration amnesty and out-of-control spending.
#4
I hear this mantra about the Democrats winning in 2006 more and more. I may be wrong but I just dont see it happening. Forget Bushs poll numbers check out the Democrats. I dont have a crystal ball, but I dont see any Republicans running to the bosom of the Donks in 2006. Somebody point to a Red state where Republicans that are going to get sent packing in favor of a Donk.
#5
The people rejected the presidents appointment for the Supreme Court, then the people rejected the control of American ports by Arabs, while the people formed their own border patrol, and now they biuld a barrier along the border without any contributions from the gubmint.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that the people want somethings that the gubmint won't do. Poll now, bleed on election day.
#6
Yes, but the Pew poll a couple weeks back put Congress' approval rating at 10%. So that makes what little position the Dems still retain in government an office that 90% don't like. That's how to make friends and influence people.
Four of the prizes honored Bush-bashing and leaking secrets. How is that good?
ON JUNE 7, 1942, shortly after the Battle of Midway, the Chicago Tribune carried a scoop: "Navy Had Word of Jap Plan to Strike at Sea." The story, written by a correspondent who had seen intelligence reports left in an officer's cabin, reported that the U.S. knew in advance the composition of the Japanese fleet. It didn't say where this information came from, but senior officers privy to the U.S. success in breaking Japanese codes were apoplectic at this security breach. The Justice Department convened a grand jury to consider whether to charge the Tribune and its flamboyant owner, editor and publisher, Col. Robert McCormick, with a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917.
No charges were brought, in part because military officials were unwilling to share classified information about intelligence gathering. But the Chicago Tribune was reviled by other journalists for betraying national security, and no other publication followed up its revelation.
Poor Col. McCormick. He was a man before his time. Today, he would have been hailed as a 1st Amendment hero, and his newspaper would have been showered with accolades. That, at least, is the only conclusion one can draw from this year's Pulitzer Prizes, which reflect a startling degree of animus toward the commander in chief in wartime.
It is hard to see how media apologists can deny their political bias when no fewer than four prizes were given at least in part for Bush-bashing. These included awards to Mike Luckovich, the left-wing cartoonist of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, who routinely portrays President Bush as a malevolent dolt, and Robin Givhan, the catty fashion critic of the Washington Post, who devoted an entire column to ridiculing Vice President Dick Cheney's attire at an Auschwitz ceremony.
There's nothing wrong with caustic criticism, but two of the award winners went further, into areas that may hamper our battle against Islamist terrorism. The Washington Post's Dana Priest won a prize for revealing the existence of secret CIA-operated prisons in Eastern Europe, and the New York Times' James Risen and Eric Lichtblau won for revealing the existence of a secret program to intercept communications between terrorists abroad and their domestic contacts.
The full repercussions of these security breaches remain unknown because, just as in 1942, intelligence officers are loath to publicly reveal the harm done to their activities. But there is no doubt that these were among the government's most tightly held secrets and that, despite personal pleas from Bush, both newspapers decided to publish them anyway to the approbation of their peers.
This would seem to lend support to the more overwrought critics on the right who imagine that the media are dominated by an anti-American cabal. Having written for major newspapers for years, I have never found any Al Qaeda moles in the newsroom. What I have found is that journalists feel more bound by their duty to their profession than to their country and that their highest professional calling, as they see it, is to preserve a halo of "objectivity" by not choosing sides in any controversy.
No one working for the mainstream media today would refer, as Ernie Pyle did during World War II, to "our soldiers," "our offensive," "our predicament." Today it's "American soldiers," "the military offensive" and (most damning of all) "the president's predicament" as if this were Bush's war, not ours. Just as newsies no longer identify in print with our troops, so they are careful to use impartial language about our enemies. Reuters has gone so far as to all but ban the use of "terrorist," which is considered too judgmental.
An unwillingness to play favorites makes sense when reporting on most topics. Mainstream reporters shouldn't choose between Republicans and Democrats or Microsoft and its critics (though in practice they usually do). But is studied neutrality really the right posture when covering a battle against monsters who fly hijacked aircraft into office buildings?
Los Angeles Times media columnist Tim Rutten, in defending the Pulitzers, claimed that critics "don't want an unbiased news media, they want a press that reflects their bias."
Right. I want journalists to cover the present struggle as a fight between good and evil. And when the good guys that would be U.S. officials say that certain revelations would help the bad guys, I want them to be given the benefit of the doubt. So, I suspect, do most Americans.
The problem with the mainstream media and a big part of why their audience is declining is that this is seen as a "bias" to be resisted at all costs.
#1
This was in the LA Times??? And the intelligent Meyer commentary was on the CBS site? What's the MSM coming to? Did somebody there happen to look at their P & L sheets or something?
#2
...The story behind the story: Stanley Johnston (the correspondent) was rescued from the sinking USS Lexington at the battle of the Coral Sea just a few weeks before Midway. Johnston took his time getting back, and as he traveled he listened very carefully to conversations he heard among USN officers. When he got back and heard about the victory at Midway, he put together what he knew with what the USN was admitting to - and he turned out to have been right on the money. McCormick - who hated Roosevelt with a passion - printed it knowing it might endanger the war effort.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
04/26/2006 18:30 Comments ||
Top||
"EVER SINCE THOSE CARTOONS in Denmark, the rules have changed. Nobody shows an image of Muhammad anymore." When a character on the animated TV show South Park made that avowal a few weeks ago, he could easily have been speaking for media outlets across Europe and North America. This past winter's Cartoon Jihad occasioned far fewer robust defenses of press freedom than it did craven surrenders to the threats of radicals. Now, even South Park, Comedy Central's irreverent powerhouse, has felt the backlash.
Sometime in March, South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker approached network executives with their idea for an episode satirizing the Danish cartoon spat. Could they depict the Muslim prophet Muhammad on screen? No way, came the immediate reply. True, Comedy Central had allowed South Park to broadcast a Muhammad character five years earlier, in the episode "Super Best Friends." But that episode debuted on July 4, 2001--just before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. "A lot changed two months later," one source close to the show told me, explaining the network's decision. "It's a vastly different world that we live in right now." Yes: a world where terrorists apparently have veto power over American television.
Stone and Parker did not take Comedy Central's censorship lightly. They made the two "Cartoon Wars" episodes an acerbic rebuke to the network. At the moment Muhammad is poised to appear, the screen goes black, and a brief message announces that Comedy Central "has refused to broadcast" the prophet's image. When the censored episodes aired--on April 5 and April 12--the blogosphere erupted with scathing indictments of the network's pusillanimity. Many conservatives also found a new reason to appreciate Stone and Parker's talents. "I'm not a fan of South Park," wrote Michelle Malkin after the April 5 show. "But the emails I've been getting all day from South Park viewers about last night's episode just might change my mind."
Part I of "Cartoon Wars" begins with Y2K-style pandemonium breaking loose, as South Park natives loot stores and hoard toilet paper before crowding into a community center. It turns out the Fox cartoon Family Guy is set to air an image of Muhammad, sparking riots across the Muslim world and leading a terrorist named al-Zawahri to vow swift retaliation. But at the last minute, Fox censors the Muhammad image, thus averting a showdown.
The four main South Park kids--Kyle, Stan, Kenny, and Cartman--trek to Kyle's house to watch the episode on TiVo. When Kyle's liberal parents catch them, his father smashes the TV with a baseball bat while his mother lectures them about "Muslim sensitivity training." Then the boys get word that Family Guy will be broadcasting another episode with Muhammad--this time, uncensored. Terrorist kingpin Zawahri warns against it, promising a "massive" response.
At a town meeting, South Parkers hear from a university professor. "Our only hope," he says, "is to make the Muslim extremists know that we had no part in the Muhammad episode: that even though the episode aired, we didn't watch it, we didn't hear it, and we didn't talk about it." How do they do that? Simple. "We bury our heads in sand." By enlisting some two dozen dump trucks, the professor explains, they can stockpile enough sand for the whole town. "We can avoid looking like we're responsible for any part of this at all."
The heads-in-the-sand fad soon sweeps the nation. Meanwhile, Kyle and Cartman are racing for Hollywood. Cartman wants the Family Guy episode canned, in hopes that it will bring down the whole show. Kyle wants it to air and strike a blow for free speech. The White House press corps wants to know why President Bush hasn't thrown the Family Guy writing staff in prison. ("Forgive me, Mr. President," one reporter smirks, "but this 'First Amendment' sounds like a lot of bureaucratic gibberygoo.")
Kyle and Cartman both wind up in the Fox president's office just seconds before the episode is due to air. Brandishing a gun, Cartman demands it be cancelled. The Fox boss starts to comply.
"You can't do what he wants just because he's the one threatening you with violence," squeals an exasperated Kyle.
"I can't be responsible for people getting hurt, especially me," grovels the Fox prez.
"Yes, people can get hurt," Kyle admits. "That's how terrorism works. But if you give in to that . . . you're allowing terrorism to work. Do the right thing here."
He's still wavering.
"If you don't show Muhammad," Kyle adds, "then you've made a distinction between what is okay to poke fun at, and what isn't. Either it's all okay, or none of it is."
Finally, the Fox prez agrees to broadcast the episode uncensored. Before Family Guy's Muhammad comes on screen carrying a football helmet, a black slate flashes with word of Comedy Central's prohibition. Then, when the show returns, we see the terrorists' retaliation: a short production by Zawahri, Osama bin Laden, and "al Qaeda Films." The movie shows Americans defecating on each other, and Jesus defecating on George W. Bush and the American flag.
The Catholic League's William Donohue, a perennial South Park scourge, blasted Stone and Parker as "little whores" for the Jesus gag. "They'll sit there and they'll whine and they'll take their shot at Jesus," he told the AP. Donohue missed the point entirely: It wasn't Jesus being mocked; it was Comedy Central. By highlighting the network's double standard--okay to offend Christians, not okay to offend Muslims--South Park, which has averaged nearly 3.5 million viewers per episode this season, affirmed that free expression may at times lead to hurt feelings. But that's no reason to capitulate, especially not when political correctness becomes physical intimidation.
On April 13, Comedy Central issued a statement defending its censorship. "In light of recent world events, we feel we made the right decision." The Cartoon Jihad may be over. But when even South Park is stifled by "recent world events," it becomes clearer than ever who won.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
