Posted by
Andrews on Monday, May 19, 2008 11:11:33 PM
I know it is fashionable to bow to conventional wisdom, but in the case of our current political atmosphere, I have to say that I am puzzled by the names people are giving to things. For example, displaying clips from a videotape sold as the "best of Reverend Wright" is somehow to defame the man by "cherry picking quotes". Well, yes there was cherry picking, but it was done by Wright himself, so is the press saying he set out to defame himself?
But that is hardly the strangest inversion in this race. Let us just look at two examples.
First, our current president. Both parties are treating him as if he were radioactive waste soaked in PCBs and wrapped in asbestos. Somehow the man who has irritated Republicans by governing from the center, who sponsored bills with Ted Kennedy, is a "right wing extremist" to the Democrats. The man who carried two wars to successful conclusions is a failure. The man who weathered a terrorist attack on US soil, which took 3000 lives, and prevented any additional attacks is a failure. And 5% unemployment, which was a triumph for Clinton, is a failure for Bush.
So, a man who suffered a devastating attack planned during his predecessor's term, conducted two wars, prevented any additional terrorist attacks, and brought the nation through a downturn in the economy without letting unemployment move much above 5%, is considered such a liability that even his own party is avoiding him.
On the other hand, we have the two front runners for their parties' nomination. One has worked with the other party, sponsoring bills in conjunction with them, and is so bipartisan in his outlook that many in his own party refuse to support him. The other has a perfect voting record according to liberal groups, has never broken ranks with his party, and yet gets the label of "uniter". The same man attends a church which proudly proclaims itself a black separatist church, identifies himself as black despite being half black and half white, and yet gets called "post racial". And finally, the "post racial" "uniter" runs a campaign based on empty promises and hollow rhetoric, and yet is hailed as being "different from other politicians".
I could probably go on, but my head is starting to spin. Centrists are extremists, liberal ideologues are uniters, black militants are post racial, success is failure, and empty promises and catchy slogans are not politics as usual. If it weren't being taken so seriously by so many, it would be funny.