Most of the electorate understands that the U.S. is in sorry shape, which is why more than 80 percent of poll respondents say we’re on the wrong track. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright has nothing to do with any of that. The idea that his nonsense may shape the outcome of this election is both tragic and absurd.
That is the concluding paragraph of Overkill and Short Shrift, Herbert's NY Times column today, in which he calls us all to account, the press for its focus, and the American people for continuing to focus on something of little importance. As he notes:
We’ve allowed the entire political process in what is perhaps the most important election in the U.S. since World War II to become thoroughly warped by the histrionics of a loony preacher from the South Side of Chicago.
There’s something wrong with us.
You should read his column.
And because you can, I am not going to write that much about it, but rather about us, the press, and our politics.
Herbert tells us that race is like pornography, but even porn addicts can get their fill, and that the working press needs to focus on things
like the cratering economy, metastasizing energy costs, the dismal state of public education, the nation’s crumbling infrastructure or the damage being done to the American soul by the endless war in Iraq.
And while I have found on the topic of education Herbert himself has been misled by the prophets of doom and gloom into an inaccurate portrayal of our schools, the lack of focus and attention of our press, including writers like Herbert, is part of the reason that the American people have such an inaccurate understanding of education and of many of the other issues facing this nation, issues which should be the focus of his columns, of our news stories, even of our political television shows.
It is possible to write about policy while writing about politics. Derrick Jackson offers an example in his column today, entitled Democrats counting on 'a lot of discontent' where he talks with voters in a very conservative county in western NC, Catawba, where the real concerns are economic. He talks with a variety of people, most of whom are Republican, who make this clear as they express support for Obama or even for Clinton, and notes
Shores, Wright, Patton, and Fox all said that Obama's controversy with his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was nowhere near a hot topic compared with jobs and the fear of $4-a-gallon gas.
And the candidates at least are grasping this: his opening paragraph, about Obama, reads like this:
IN TRYING to relate to white, working-class voters, Barack Obama cited the job losses in the furniture and textile plants in this area at a packed high school gymnasium on Tuesday. He drew loud applause for saying how corporate profits have gone "way up" while the average family was losing income as "the cost of healthcare, to college, to a gallon of milk, to a gallon of gas" is also going way up.
In a county Bush won both times by better than 2-1 while carrying the state by 56%,
Hickory Mayor Rudy Wright said there is little chance a Democrat could win Catawba outright. But given concerns about the economy that cut across party lines, Wright said there is a chance for Democrats Obama or Hillary Clinton to make some inroads.
Politicians know that there are real needs out there. And the polling data makes clear that the American people want their concerns addressed. Perhaps that is why McCain and Clinton are demagoguing the gas tax. Yet even that does not get the kind of analysis it deserves, with the American people being given the information to which they are entitled in order to help them make up their minds.
The cable news shows seem to believe that their political coverage, whether by the best team on TV or the best coverage on cable, should be more about the horse race, the inside baseball. Perhaps we should be grateful. The trainwreck coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright seems to be the equivalent of dead or missing blond white girl. Ten years ago we were being treated to all Monica all of the time, even though the American people made clear that they did not think the Lewinsky matter rose to the level of an impeachable offense.
Let's return to the gas tax idea. However much of a pander it may be, it at least represents some level of policy discussion. But as Herbert notes,
The point here is that this was a tailor-made opening for the press to push the candidates hard on a phenomenally important question: What should we be doing in the short and long term about U.S. energy requirements?
But we did not see or hear that.
We have heard SOME policy discussions in the press, but far too often phrased in the "gotcha" mode - seeking to catch the candidates in some level of contradiction. That is why it is refreshing when a candidate, any candidate, admits s/he was wrong about something. It demonstrates a willingness to learn and adjust, something all leaders should be able to do. I want to see the evidence of that in those who seek my vote, because I know none of them will always be correct in original judgments: it scares me to think that fear of having to admit error might result in what we have seen from Bush, continuing headlong down a disastrous path to avoid the "weakness" of admitting a previous error.
We should be insisting of our media as well as our politicians that they address the real needs of this nation. We should not settle for panders, nor should we settle for coverage that is limited to the political effect of a particular expression - will it gain or lose votes for the politician who uses it? How about whether or not the expression, however awkwardly it may be phrased, addresses the reality of the situation.
This is incumbent upon those of us who participate here. If the site seems consumed with the same issues as gobble up the media oxygen, we cannot perform our most useful service of elucidating otherwise under-served issues, of holding to account the so-called Main Stream Media for its failures to offer proper coverage of thing that matter, for limiting its coverage of "issue" topics to how it helps or hurts a particular candidacy.
This is a political site. It is appropriate for us to spend part of our time examining effects of statements, endorsements, fund raising, particular advertisements, and the like. DailyKos provides a one-stop visit in which I can easily be in touch with all of that, often with analysis that is quite perspicacious.
But I believe that politics is about more than winning. I am a Democrat because of policy, because of philosophy, because I believe in attempting to move our nation through the actions of our government, and I am concerned about how we move it, and in what direction.
I also believe that this cycle is somewhat different in that the American people are hungry for something different, are willing to listen to hard truths. That Mayor from Hickory is a Republican who, like much of the country, is now more willing to listen to the Democratic message - Jackson notes that the latest CBS poll found 52% of the nation having a favorable opinion of the Democratic party as compared to only 33% for the Republicans. But note the words of the Mayor, with which Jackson closes:
"I always wonder," Wright said, "after I come out of the voting booth, is it going to be the same old stuff?"
If the perception of the campaign is that it is only more of the same, the possibility of involving the American people in reclaiming a government so that it works for all of us will disappear. If the coverage of the campaign is about the Jeremiah Wrights and the Tuzlas and little else, we will lose the opportunity to reinvigorate our political discourse. Both Jeremiah Wright and Tuzla are a legitimate PART of that discourse, but they should not consume it. A press that flogs either or both or anything similar to the disadvantage of discussing the implications of policy does a huge disservice to the the political process it claims to be serving. At that moment the political team demonstrates not how good it is, but how self-absorbed. It also demonstrates its own arrogance and elitism, its belief that this will bring ratings, gain it profits. And it will continue to justify such an approach by claiming that the ratings demonstrate that it is fulfilling the desires of the American people.
In 1992 we saw how wrong that attitude is. An unlikely figure bought his own tv time, and in his annoying voice, with his big-eared presentation, sat for an hour pointing at charts and attempting to explain things as he saw them to the American people. Perhaps those running TV and Cable should go back to see how many American people watched Perot. Or if you are being consumed by polling data, remember that until he self-destructed on other issues, Perot was polling over 1/3 of the nation, ahead of either the incumbent president or the man who would eventually defeat him.
Much of our discourse is the back and forth about the implications of this election, what it might mean if the supporters of one candidate refused to back the other in the general. I would suggest there is something of even greater importance. I believe this election represents a last, best chance to reform our political processes. I believe that enough Americans are wanting serious discussions about the things that matter to them that we could see a candidate and party that treats them as adults in that regard win an overwhelming victory. And should that happen, it potentially could force others to begin to respect the intelligence of the American voter, and the willingness of that voter to be challenge positively rather than scared witless about one's opponent(s). The needs of this country are vast - so are the needs of the world with which we must interact. We desperately need leaders who not only understand that, but who recognize that they cannot succeed in moving the country where it must go for its own survival unless they fully involve the American people in that process.
I am a teacher. I have never run for political office and never will. Now in my second decade in the classroom, I have come to realize that if challenge my students, more often than not they will rise to that challenge. If I do not challenge them, far too many will sink to the low level they believe I expect of them. In the latter case I will have failed as a teacher, and - of equal importance - as a human being. I have seen students who might enter a classroom believing they were going to fail succeed because I refused to give up on them, and kept challenging them.
I teach government. I want my students to believe that their participation can make a difference not only for themselves but for the society in which they live.
I want leaders who trust people like my students. Hell, I want leaders who trust people like me, like the others that come here out of our concern for the future of our nation. I want us to be challenged.
When I read Bob Herbert today, I felt as if he recognized that the press has been failing our political process, our people, our society. They can do better. So can our politicians, and we should insist that both our politicians and the media we use to help us know and understand live up to a higher set of standards. But we will be able to do so only when our own actions are in accord with such aspirations.
I awoke very early today. I read. And then I wrote this. Perhaps my words will invoke a response in you. It may be in agreement or in opposition. If you offer it, I will read it. I hope the discourse, even if challenging, will remain civil.
And I wish you and yours a rewarding Saturday.
Peace.