There’s quite a menagerie to American
politics. At one end of our zoo, there are the donkeys and at the far right,
the elephants. Neither are very cleanly creatures, and both of them—like
monkeys—have a tendency to fling feces. Candidacy itself is described as a
horse race, and candidate debates have turned into a dog and pony show. For
their part, the media are parrots, repeating what is told to them and squawking
every time they want ratings. (If you care for a reference, see Nancy Grace to
the left and Bill O’Reilly to the right.) The publics are like sheep and
everyone involved has a tendency, like ostriches were once said to do, to bury
their heads in the sand when real issues are raised.
No, Noah. They're not worthy.
But, please, don’t take my word for it.
The January 26 CNN debate will speak for itself. Or not—sure, there was a lot
of talking, but even the media do not seem to be quite sure of how much was
actually said (viz Proverbs 29:20*).
I’ll be the first to admit that I didn’t
watch it. The pomp was just too much, and we’re in an age of technology, after
all. It was just too easy to close the youtube window. It was then I was forced
to wonder if this represented a problem with the American publics’ attention
span or the usefulness of political reporting. Maybe we should check the polls.
I’d
have watched it in real time, but—like many young Americans—I have a real job.
Instead, I went to the transcripts, where the audience isn’t subjected to the
fake smiles and peacock feather fluffing.
There were plenty of cockfights that the
media gobbled up like hungry swine, but the overall quality was sloppy. With
pretty, overarching phrases like, “secure the border,” “free trade,” and
“immigrant grandmother,” we didn’t get much more than those 8-second sound bites
for the media to play until we’re sick of hearing them.
In the first question (“Can you tell me
what specific actions you'll take to address the costly consequences of illegal
immigration while preserving the rights of those who seek to immigrate
legally?”), only Ron Paul gave a real response. Santorum spouted a lot of crap
about securing the border, following laws, and sanctions against employers.
Gingrich basically agreed, adding that legal immigration should be easier to
acquire and gave an endorsement to his consorts in big business—American
Express, Visa and Master Card. (Someone got laid for that… proverbially, of
course.) Romney stood by self-deportation. None of them gave details or
answered how they would accomplish these goals or with what resources. Save for
Paul, who clearly and succinctly said that we should stop focusing on other
countries, and place the resources there back home. (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/push-it-somewhere-else-patrick)
If you know anything about history, you’d
remember that that was Rome’s version of self-preservation. Something about not
overextending oneself with conquest and performing baseline defense. Good
strategy. A classic.
Shortly thereafter, we get to the
prettiest cockfight of the debate, one that no one watching or reading the news
can seem to escape. Like a freshman repeating the first incident wherein a
professor cursed in class, the media can’t seem to get enough of Romney’s
overuse of the phrase “inexcusable.” It wasn’t even as good as the Sicilian’s
equally abused, “inconceivable” of the Princess
Bride. Nevertheless, Gingrich and Romney fought bitterly over the former’s
use of the superlative (“most anti-immigrant candidate”) in describing the
latter.
Not to say there was any real political
consequence to this clash. In the end, people won’t—read: shouldn’t—be swayed
to vote in their primaries either way based on the few-minutes clip of their
posturing.
And the real problem with the American
media is that they focus on events outside of real consequence. Not just
events.
At this point a question is asked
concerning relations with Latin American countries. There is some tension here
between Paul and Santorum, wherein Paul suggests free trade as an answer and
Santorum suggests “closer ties.” Paul responds cattily (the animal puns keep
coming!) that Santorum doesn’t define his idea of closer ties and accuses that
closer ties involve “that we impose ourselves, go and pick the dictators,
undermine certain governments, also sending them a lot of money.”
Santorum responds that Paul “obviously
wasn’t listening to” his closer ties argument.
Let’s pause for a moment and go back to
history. Iraq is close enough that you don’t have to do any real research. We
took out a dictator that was, by Santorum’s terms, “a threat” to democracy. We
have tried to mold them into “friends who want to engage and support America,
who want to be great trading partners and great allies for our country.” And to
do so, we imposed ourselves, picked the dictators, forced democracy (read: undermined
certain governments), and threw a lot of money at it to “accomplish” these
noble goals.
Who,
Mr. Santorum, was listening?
Now, we get to another catfight. Romney accuses Gingrich of
having another consort (he does get around, doesn’t he?) in American big
business—Freddie Mac, who reportedly hired him to maintain the marriage and
strength of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (the only marriage he’s been able to
save). Gingrich responds like any upset 2nd grader—with an ad hominem attack.
“Well you have stock in these companies.
Who you calling cootie queen, you lint licker?” Okay, I might have paraphrased.
In the end, Romney plays dumb. He did this
just before the Fannie and Freddie fight, concerning an ad about Gingrich,
wherein he accuses Gingrich of calling Spanish, “the language of the ghetto.”
He claimed he didn’t recall the ad, and CNN researchers quickly hunted it down,
proudly endorsed by Romney at the end. In this case, he claimed that his
finances were “managed by a trustee”—must be nice, huh? So, it didn’t matter
that he made millions of dollars in the housing bubble. It wasn’t his fault,
right?
In the end, they both looked like
asses—with or without the animal puns.
Now, in the animal world, we get to see a
prime example of the fight or flight response. Observe:
Returning from commercial break, Blitzer
confronts Gingrich about his response to Romney’s finances. Here, we see
flight. Gingrich calls it a nonsense question, and with sweet-talk unrivaled by
lyrebirds in courtship, implores the moderator to skip the question.
Now, we see fight! Like a proper predator,
Mr. Wolf sticks to his guns and quotes Gingrich in saying Romney, “lives in a
world of Swiss bank and Cayman Island bank accounts.” Shrewdly as a snake and
with the innocence of a dove, the moderator pointedly adds, “I didn’t say that.
You did.”
I’d paraphrase here, but I can display
Gingrich’s horror no better than he, himself. “I did,” he admits. “And I'm
perfectly happy to say that on an interview on some TV show. But this is a
national debate, where you have a chance to get the four of us to talk about a
whole range of issues.”
Romney skips the dove part and strikes
like a cobra. “Wouldn't it be nice if people didn't make accusations somewhere
else that they weren't willing to defend here?”
Well, sir, wouldn’t it be nice if you didn’t
say that to exploit over quoting in the media for face time?
_________________________________________________________
*(NIV) "There is more hope for a fool than someone who speaks without thinking.
