Why is a raven like a writing desk?
This famous riddle first appeared in Lewis Carroll's absurdist masterpiece, Alice in Wonderland, and has since inspired many fairly uninspired answers: "Because they both stand on sticks," "Because Poe wrote on both," and, my personal favorite, "Because they both taste terrible." Carroll offered no answer within the tale, instead writing only the following exchange between Alice and her enigmatic tea party companions:
"Have you guessed the riddle yet?" the Hatter said, turning to Alice again.
"No, I give it up," Alice replied. "What's the answer?"
"I haven't the slightest idea," said the Hatter.
"Nor I," said the March Hare.
Alice sighed wearily. "I think you might do something better with the time," she said, "than wasting it in asking riddles that have no answers."
This unanswerable riddle, Alice's rather American response, and the need for Carroll's readers to create an answer where none logically exists is on my mind because a similar, modern riddle is making the political rounds. No doubt you've heard it and, perhaps, offered some answers of your own: In this seemingly slam-dunk year for Democrats, why isn't Barack Obama doing better? Sure, people say, he's now leading in most national polls; but, others counter, only by a small margin. Sure, people respond, he appears poised for an electoral college victory should his support in Pennsylvania and Colorado hold; but, others reply, why is he struggling so with so-called Reagan Democrats? By all accounts, given the depths to which President Bush's approval ratings have sunk and the extent to which Americans self-report feeling worse off than they did four or eight years ago, any Democratic candidate should sweep into office on a mandate. Yet, the election remains perilously close; and that's a riddle to rival Carroll's.
Is Obama suffering because of racial divisions? Is it because he appears too cool and professorial when speaking on the stump? Is it because the McCain camp somehow successfully stuck him with the labels of "celebrity," "unprepared," and "naive"? There MUST be an answer, you see, because without one, the riddle runs the risk of ruining a once sure-thing.
Were I to posit an answer to this riddle (which I am, of course, about to do... after all, Alice, what is a blog if not time well-wasted asking riddles to which the answers elude?), it would be this: Obama, himself, is a riddle. He has lived a life so safely tethered to the unobjectionable, so as to become a spectre of himself. It can't be as simple as to say he suffers for race, as he is, factually, biracial ("half-white" in crude vernacular), and displays none of the so-feared (read: unknown and misunderstood) attributes of Black America that inspires such reactions in White America (save, perhaps, for Reverend Wright, who's greatest flaw may be his arrogance, but who's greatest sin was certainly not rightly claiming that America's "chickens had come home to roost."). He didn't even denote himself as a student of color on his Harvard Law application! It can't be as simple as to say that he's too cool and professorial, because he is best known for his soaring and inspirational prose. Nor can it be as simple as to say that McCain's trickery, of smoke and lipstick-smeared mirrors, has displayed any lasting power - courtesy primarily of two women McCain dragged into the race: Paris Hilton and Sarah Palin. No, it can't be as simple as all this at all.
Americans like their leaders flawed, "like them," in recognizable ways. Look only to the phoenix-from-the-ashes successes of Bill and Hillary Clinton as proof - reviled and beloved and as likely to survive a nuclear holocaust as Cher once said about herself and cockroaches. They survive - and all politicians like them survive - because they are real and human and messy and fight with every breath for their right to "keep going," as Hillary now famously echoed Harriet Tubman, however blind to their own flaws they may be. They don't lead unobjectionable, intangible lives; rather, they present themselves as fascinating riddles with a plethora of even more fascinating answers.
Obama isn't doing better because, like Alice, Americans can't help but think he must have had better things to do with his time.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Spin Cushion
The guests on this morning's edition of "Meet the Press" were chief officials from both the McCain and Obama campaigns: David Axelrod and Steve Schmidt. What they offered was nothing resembling news as it was once known, but only further proof of how indistiguishable modern news has become from professional wrestling.
While representatives from campaigns make more television appearances this time of year than ED treatments, I remain distressed that these so-called "spin-meisters" command so much of the media's collective attentions. Is there a single journalist following either campaign who doesn't know what talking points will spill from these spinsters' mouths? Is there, thus, any connection to news being made or offered when these individuals are given such significant platforms from which to spew their unchallenged nonsense?
We have all witnessed the decline of journalism since the advent of the 24-hour news channels (and even moreso since the unchallenged "you're with us or against us" patriotism demands post-9/11), but, as with most things in the public sector, we're not sufficiently outraged. Only if we turn OFF our televisions immediately following sanctioned debates are we allowed the opportunity to draw our own conclusions, and assess and weigh our own reactions, before they are tainted by the anything-but-impartial talking heads given as much air time (and longer response times) than the candidates preceding them. We've become so conditioned to being told what, and how, to think by our favorite "news" personalities, we couldn't stitch together an independent, well-informed position on most any issue of importance. I don't need (or want) to hear what one campaign says about another - I need (and want) to hear how we can reclaim a government that has grown more despotic by the year, how we can reestablish international respect, how we can extracate ourselves from a preemptive and criminal war with decency and aplomb and how we can pay-off a crippling national debt. Are these issues truly less important than who wears what bracelet?
News, by definition, should involve the imparting of information that is new, relevant and accurate. What media outlets should spend time doing, and fill hours broadcasting, involves fact-checking the increasingly outrageous spin that comes from the candidates and their surrogates, not allowing those individuals endless hours within which to poke and prod an increasingly ill-informed and dizzy electorate with one push-spin after another.
While representatives from campaigns make more television appearances this time of year than ED treatments, I remain distressed that these so-called "spin-meisters" command so much of the media's collective attentions. Is there a single journalist following either campaign who doesn't know what talking points will spill from these spinsters' mouths? Is there, thus, any connection to news being made or offered when these individuals are given such significant platforms from which to spew their unchallenged nonsense?
We have all witnessed the decline of journalism since the advent of the 24-hour news channels (and even moreso since the unchallenged "you're with us or against us" patriotism demands post-9/11), but, as with most things in the public sector, we're not sufficiently outraged. Only if we turn OFF our televisions immediately following sanctioned debates are we allowed the opportunity to draw our own conclusions, and assess and weigh our own reactions, before they are tainted by the anything-but-impartial talking heads given as much air time (and longer response times) than the candidates preceding them. We've become so conditioned to being told what, and how, to think by our favorite "news" personalities, we couldn't stitch together an independent, well-informed position on most any issue of importance. I don't need (or want) to hear what one campaign says about another - I need (and want) to hear how we can reclaim a government that has grown more despotic by the year, how we can reestablish international respect, how we can extracate ourselves from a preemptive and criminal war with decency and aplomb and how we can pay-off a crippling national debt. Are these issues truly less important than who wears what bracelet?
News, by definition, should involve the imparting of information that is new, relevant and accurate. What media outlets should spend time doing, and fill hours broadcasting, involves fact-checking the increasingly outrageous spin that comes from the candidates and their surrogates, not allowing those individuals endless hours within which to poke and prod an increasingly ill-informed and dizzy electorate with one push-spin after another.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
What McCain Doesn't Understand
Grumpy. Condescending. Scolding. Troll.
Are these the attributes Americans want in a President? If so, they found their man in John McCain during last night's first Presidential debate. As the pundits and pols openly struggled to call a winner (as if national politics were a bloodsport, presided over by a toga-clad Joaquin Phoenix), the above interesting, honest reactions to McCain's demeanor escaped many lips. While most agreed the night marked McCain's best debate performance to date, most also did so with a crinkled face, pursed lips and the not-so-subtle suspicion that words aside, just like in past performances marred by sighs and sweaty brows, perception would matter more.
McCain did not look at Obama more than twice during the entire 94 minutes. Those two times came before and after the debate when, seemingly to his chagrin, he had to greet Obama center-stage and shake the whipper-snapper's hand. For the remainder of their shared time on the national stage, McCain stood, stone-faced, and, at times, seemingly more than a little angry, facing Jim Lehrer, speaking to or about Obama as if Obama weren't there. He seemed more than a little put-out to even have to be there, deigning to explain himself beside, and answering the same questions as, someone so clearly "naive," and out of his league. Obama, meanwhile, took some flak for being too kind to McCain, offering praise when it was due, showing respect in tone, content and body language. The whole affair looked like a couple on the verge of divorce, with Obama playing the role of doting, committed husband, McCain the furious, passive-aggressive wife constantly pointing out what her partner "doesn't understand," and Lehrer the befuddled therapist just trying to get them to talk TO EACH OTHER.
How does such a scenario play out, to those accustomed to watching these sorts of dramatic scenes more often on "Grey's Anatomy" than CNN? My guess is that by the end of the debate, most viewers had a sense that one of the two men on that stage did not want to be there and had no respect for the other and that such petulance, condescension and derision is exactly what they want to see less, not more, of in the political sphere. (Not to mention, the sight of an old, white man failing to acknowledge the presence and contributions of a young, black man will rightly push buttons all its own.)
We live in a world where the ability, and desire, to talk through our differences is not only something for which we thirst, but something upon which our most basic needs rest.
By that angrily dismissing Obama, and the concerns he raised about the past eight years, McCain was dismissing an American electorate that is growing increasingly angry itself. What McCain doesn't understand is that it is no longer "morning in America," as Reagan famously said back in the decade when children played with trolls; it's long past high noon, and it's time to put away our childish things.
Are these the attributes Americans want in a President? If so, they found their man in John McCain during last night's first Presidential debate. As the pundits and pols openly struggled to call a winner (as if national politics were a bloodsport, presided over by a toga-clad Joaquin Phoenix), the above interesting, honest reactions to McCain's demeanor escaped many lips. While most agreed the night marked McCain's best debate performance to date, most also did so with a crinkled face, pursed lips and the not-so-subtle suspicion that words aside, just like in past performances marred by sighs and sweaty brows, perception would matter more.
McCain did not look at Obama more than twice during the entire 94 minutes. Those two times came before and after the debate when, seemingly to his chagrin, he had to greet Obama center-stage and shake the whipper-snapper's hand. For the remainder of their shared time on the national stage, McCain stood, stone-faced, and, at times, seemingly more than a little angry, facing Jim Lehrer, speaking to or about Obama as if Obama weren't there. He seemed more than a little put-out to even have to be there, deigning to explain himself beside, and answering the same questions as, someone so clearly "naive," and out of his league. Obama, meanwhile, took some flak for being too kind to McCain, offering praise when it was due, showing respect in tone, content and body language. The whole affair looked like a couple on the verge of divorce, with Obama playing the role of doting, committed husband, McCain the furious, passive-aggressive wife constantly pointing out what her partner "doesn't understand," and Lehrer the befuddled therapist just trying to get them to talk TO EACH OTHER.
How does such a scenario play out, to those accustomed to watching these sorts of dramatic scenes more often on "Grey's Anatomy" than CNN? My guess is that by the end of the debate, most viewers had a sense that one of the two men on that stage did not want to be there and had no respect for the other and that such petulance, condescension and derision is exactly what they want to see less, not more, of in the political sphere. (Not to mention, the sight of an old, white man failing to acknowledge the presence and contributions of a young, black man will rightly push buttons all its own.)
We live in a world where the ability, and desire, to talk through our differences is not only something for which we thirst, but something upon which our most basic needs rest.
By that angrily dismissing Obama, and the concerns he raised about the past eight years, McCain was dismissing an American electorate that is growing increasingly angry itself. What McCain doesn't understand is that it is no longer "morning in America," as Reagan famously said back in the decade when children played with trolls; it's long past high noon, and it's time to put away our childish things.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Government BY the People or FOR the People
In his famed Gettysburg Address, America's consistently most-popular and revered President (yes, even more than that beloved Reagan, natch), Lincoln, uttered what have become sixteen of the most famous words ever spoken by a leader of the free world: "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." What Lincoln did not say, and perhaps could not predict, was that the American government's shelf-life would become dependent upon the conflict at the root of his very own idea: a government BY the people is not necessarily a government FOR the people. At least not when people vote against their interests in the interest of voting for themselves.
Eight years ago, it became de rigeur for members of the news media to discuss the beer affect of politics. The candidate voters most wanted to "have a beer with" was most often the candidate who won over the working-class hearts and minds of the American voter. The not-so-subtle psychology of this is multipronged: voters want to connect with, and feel as if they understand, their leaders, meaning said leaders must be more like the voter than not; voters want someone like themselves, someone they could envision as their friend, in charge. Certainly nothing else could explain the original, if now mercifully fading, popularity of George W. Bush. And, it would appear, little else can explain the overwhelming appeal of Sarah Palin, the least prepared candidate on a Presidential ticket in a century.
The most harmful aspect of our governmental structure - what Lincoln called "government BY the people" - is at full play in the quick advancement of these two neophytes (and, arguably, many like them) and the costs have been, and would continue to be, enormous. While it is of great importance that our elected representatives be capable of representing our interests, and first-hand knowledge of American life certainly helps, that capability doesn't come simply by osmosis. Legislation and leadership require a skill set that running a ranch and frying a mooseburger don't provide.
I for one, prefer government leadership that's smarter than I. I'm a proponent of government FOR the people, wherein elected representatives behave, act, vote and lobby on behalf of their constituents, with an eye perpetually gazing over what will improve American lives. Government isn't working currently, because it isn't working FOR us. It's working for special interests, big business and the constant reelection machine - even the least cynical among us knows that. But, it's also not working because it's too OF us. Nowhere else in our lives do we suffer mediocrity, much less self-select it, as deeply as we do in national politics. Would one want a surgeon who was a "C" student? How about one who attended five different schools in six years? No one would want that, not when one's own life is in their hands. In the doctor's office, we want the elite egghead who is not OF us. Why is it different in the oval office?
If the American people cannot suss out the subtle, but vital, differences between a goverment by the people and one for the people, Lincoln will be proven wrong and those pesky Christian fundamentalists will be proven right: We most certainly will perish from the earth. Save for those who rapturously leave only their clothing behind.
- Mr. Polk
Eight years ago, it became de rigeur for members of the news media to discuss the beer affect of politics. The candidate voters most wanted to "have a beer with" was most often the candidate who won over the working-class hearts and minds of the American voter. The not-so-subtle psychology of this is multipronged: voters want to connect with, and feel as if they understand, their leaders, meaning said leaders must be more like the voter than not; voters want someone like themselves, someone they could envision as their friend, in charge. Certainly nothing else could explain the original, if now mercifully fading, popularity of George W. Bush. And, it would appear, little else can explain the overwhelming appeal of Sarah Palin, the least prepared candidate on a Presidential ticket in a century.
The most harmful aspect of our governmental structure - what Lincoln called "government BY the people" - is at full play in the quick advancement of these two neophytes (and, arguably, many like them) and the costs have been, and would continue to be, enormous. While it is of great importance that our elected representatives be capable of representing our interests, and first-hand knowledge of American life certainly helps, that capability doesn't come simply by osmosis. Legislation and leadership require a skill set that running a ranch and frying a mooseburger don't provide.
I for one, prefer government leadership that's smarter than I. I'm a proponent of government FOR the people, wherein elected representatives behave, act, vote and lobby on behalf of their constituents, with an eye perpetually gazing over what will improve American lives. Government isn't working currently, because it isn't working FOR us. It's working for special interests, big business and the constant reelection machine - even the least cynical among us knows that. But, it's also not working because it's too OF us. Nowhere else in our lives do we suffer mediocrity, much less self-select it, as deeply as we do in national politics. Would one want a surgeon who was a "C" student? How about one who attended five different schools in six years? No one would want that, not when one's own life is in their hands. In the doctor's office, we want the elite egghead who is not OF us. Why is it different in the oval office?
If the American people cannot suss out the subtle, but vital, differences between a goverment by the people and one for the people, Lincoln will be proven wrong and those pesky Christian fundamentalists will be proven right: We most certainly will perish from the earth. Save for those who rapturously leave only their clothing behind.
- Mr. Polk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
