 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Lack of Civility in Gov't | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/10/2003 2:46 PM (GMT -6) |   | we should all look to our leaders as examples in this regard
Lessons in Civility
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 10, 2003
It's the season of the angry liberal. Books like Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," Joe Conason's "Big Lies" and Molly Ivins's "Bushwhacked" have become best sellers. (Yes, I've got one out there, too.) But conservatives are distressed because those liberals are so angry and rude. O.K., they admit, they themselves were a bit rude during the Clinton years — that seven-year, $70 million investigation of a tiny money-losing land deal, all that fuss about the president's private life — but they're sorry, and now it's time for everyone to be civil.
Indeed, angry liberals can take some lessons in civility from today's right.
Consider, for example, Fox News's genteel response to Christiane Amanpour, the CNN correspondent. Ms. Amanpour recently expressed some regret over CNN's prewar reporting: "Perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News." A Fox spokeswoman replied, "It's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than as a spokeswoman for Al Qaeda."
And liberal pundits who may be tempted to cast personal aspersions can take lessons in courtesy from conservatives like Charles Krauthammer, who last December reminded TV viewers of his previous career as a psychiatrist, then said of Al Gore, "He could use a little help."
What's really important, of course, is that political figures stick to the issues, like the Bush adviser who told The New York Times that the problem with Senator John Kerry is that "he looks French."
Some say that the right, having engaged in name-calling and smear tactics when Bill Clinton was president, now wants to change the rules so such behavior is no longer allowed. In fact, the right is still calling names and smearing; it wants to prohibit rude behavior only by liberals.
But there's more going on than a simple attempt to impose a double standard. All this fuss about the rudeness of the Bush administration's critics is an attempt to preclude serious discussion of that administration's policies. For there is no way to be both honest and polite about what has happened in these past three years.
On the fiscal front, this administration has used deceptive accounting to ram through repeated long-run tax cuts in the face of mounting deficits. And it continues to push for more tax cuts, when even the most sober observers now talk starkly about the risk to our solvency. It's impolite to say that George W. Bush is the most fiscally irresponsible president in American history, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.
On the foreign policy front, this administration hyped the threat from Iraq, ignoring warnings from military professionals that a prolonged postwar occupation would tie down much of our Army and undermine our military readiness. (Joseph Galloway, co-author of "We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young," says that "we have perhaps the finest Army in history," but that "Donald H. Rumsfeld and his civilian aides have done just about everything they could to destroy that Army.") It's impolite to say that Mr. Bush has damaged our national security with his military adventurism, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Still, some would say that criticism should focus only on Mr. Bush's policies, not on his person. But no administration in memory has made paeans to the president's character — his "honor and integrity" — so central to its political strategy. Nor has any previous administration been so determined to portray the president as a hero, going so far as to pose him in line with the heads on Mount Rushmore, or arrange that landing on the aircraft carrier. Surely, then, Mr. Bush's critics have the right to point out that the life story of the man inside the flight suit isn't particularly heroic — that he has never taken a risk or made a sacrifice for the sake of his country, and that his business career is a story of murky deals and insider privilege.
In the months after 9/11, a shocked nation wanted to believe the best of its leader, and Mr. Bush was treated with reverence. But he abused the trust placed in him, pushing a partisan agenda that has left the nation weakened and divided. Yes, I know that's a rude thing to say. But it's also the truth.
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/10/2003 8:05 PM (GMT -6) | | | I would also say one of the reasons that people aren't talking about Bush's policies is they don't have the answers themselves. It is interesting to watch the debates coming from the Democrats which amount to nothing more than ripping Bush and each other. If the right is as bad as Krugman says, then our world is in trouble because there is no one on the left that has shown an integrity either. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/10/2003 8:08 PM (GMT -6) | | | BTW, I have no problem with criticizing anyone. But Krugman seems to mistake meanness at a person with meanness of policy and he cannot stop with simply criticing Bush and the right. He has to assign terms such "liars" and "deceivers," which one, he has no way of knowing, and 2, doesn't help his cause. No conservative is going to listen to a liberal who brands people that way. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/19/2003 4:01 PM (GMT -6) | | This illustrates the lack of civility with a look at the predominance of radio talk-show hosts, and the manicheist rhetoric commonly used in this, absent critical policy analyst to help voters/citizens make better choices overall.
Al Franken is also rather scary, I should add in this Lehrer Newshour feature.
TERENCE SMITH: The message on most talk radio is the same every day. The left is wrong, the right is right.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: The people on the left hold that as a fundamental belief that people can't be trusted, people aren't smart, people don't have any judgment. I mean, that's the essence of liberalism in the first place.
MICHAEL SAVAGE: Every stinking, rotten left winger in this country poses a far greater threat to your freedom than does al-Qaida.
SEAN HANNITY: The regulations, the law, the Constitution means nothing to these Democrats when it comes to maintaining power.
G. GORDON LIDDY: President Clinton cut the armed forces of the United States so deeply and severely, that we don't have enough troops.
The popularity of conservative talk radio
JON SINTON, CEO, Anshell Media: Every day in America on the 45 top-rated talk radio stations, there are 310 hours of conservative talk. There is a total of five hours of talk that comes from the other side of the aisle.
TERENCE SMITH: Talk radio's overwhelming rightward slant exists, despite the fact that the nation is almost evenly divided politically -- as was demonstrated in the 2000 presidential popular vote, and the 2002 congressional elections.
Even the most successful Democrat in recent history grudgingly credits talk radio hosts as contributing for last year's Republican successes.
BILL CLINTON: Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity -- who are very outspoken on the right wing of the Republican Party. We don't have that.
TERENCE SMITH: Tony Blankley, editorial page editor of the conservative Washington Times, is even more emphatic about the political importance of talk radio.
TONY BLANKLEY, The Washington Times: Starting in 1994, with the Republican election of Congress, I think Limbaugh made the difference in electing the Republican majority. In the following three elections he made the difference in holding the majority. And in 2000, in the presidential race in Florida, he was the difference between Gore and Bush winning Florida, and thus the presidency.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: Talent on loan from God.
TERENCE SMITH: For 15 years, Rush Limbaugh has been the undisputed king of political talk radio. With an estimated weekly audience today of more than 14 million, on 600 stations, he is syndicated by the premiere radio networks.
Many say Limbaugh is personally responsible for talk radio's popularity, its conservative direction, and for pioneering the path for others.
MICHAEL HARRISON, Editor, Talkers Magazine: The trends go where the talent lies.
TERENCE SMITH: Michael Harrison is editor and publisher of Talkers, the talk show industry's trade magazine.
MICHAEL HARRISON: Talent is key. Why is suddenly there so much in interest in golf since Tiger Woods came on the scene? Well, maybe because guys like that don't come along every day. Guys like Rush, Rush Limbaugh don't come around every day.
TERENCE SMITH: Jon Sinton is a veteran radio executive and a liberal Democrat.
TERENCE SMITH: Why are the most successful and the largest number of talk show hosts on the conservative side of the spectrum?
JON SINTON: It is all due, and all credit due, to Rush Limbaugh.
Rush could just as easily have been a flaming liberal, and the other side would be complaining that this is, you know, well, "how come all these liberals are on the radio?"
TERENCE SMITH: That explains Rush Limbaugh, but does it explain the whole phenomenon?
JON SINTON: Oh, I think it does. It became very easy to replicate the success of a Rush Limbaugh and come up with a G. Gordon Liddy, and come up with a Sean Hannity, and come up with a Michael Savage.
TERENCE SMITH: So, it's not a vast right-wing conspiracy?
JON SINTON: I wish it were because it'd make better copy, but I really don't think it is.
SEAN HANNITY: You never hear liberals complain about spending unless it has to do with our military.
TERENCE SMITH: Sean Hannity is second only to Limbaugh as a talk radio host. His weekly audience is more than 10 million people. He's on nearly 400 stations, and is syndicated by ABC Radio. Hannity is a great admirer of Limbaugh.
But he says there's also another big reason for talk radio's right wing bent.
SEAN HANNITY: Most of the major newspapers in this country slant solidly to the left. I'd argue the three major news organizations -- ABC, NBC, and CBS -- slant solidly to the left. You have two cable channels that slant solidly to the left. I think it's fairly obvious.
Talk radio's rise is in part to the mainstream media being solidly to the left.
TERENCE SMITH: Mainstream news executives deny any such bias. Hannity also argues that conservative talkers like him are often wrongly stereotyped.
SEAN HANNITY: Liberals want to paint conservatives as angry white men on the radio. No, we're not. We're happy normal, law-abiding taxpaying, wonderful people. They love to play tennis with us on the weekend.
Deregulation of the radio industry
TERENCE SMITH: Hannity and other political talkers owe their existence largely to Reagan-era deregulation.
In 1987, the Federal Communications Commission repealed the so-called "fairness" doctrine. That policy required stations -- because they use the public airways -- to present differing views on controversial issues. Since repeal, there's been no requirement to balance talk radio's conservative voices.
Talk radio's audience has not been kind to liberal hosts. Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, one of the Democratic Party's most articulate leaders, ended his weekly program after it failed to get ratings.
JIM HIGHTOWER: You and me drive the establishment crazy.
TERENCE SMITH: Another liberal, former Texas agriculture commissioner Jim Hightower, also lost his program.
Conservatives dominate talk radio to such an extent, that even in liberal San Francisco, where Gore outpolled Bush 5-1, the top-rated afternoon talk radio host is Michael Savage, a conservative screamer so outrageous, he got fired from his own cable TV show.
MICHAEL SAVAGE: You're a moron. It's idiots like you who cause this country to go up in flames. Moron, moron, moron.
TERENCE SMITH: Some liberals argue that politics and ideology are one reason for the right wing dominance of talk radio.
They cite the case of the Dixie Chicks. Many stations stopped playing their music after one member criticized President Bush. And some stations even sponsored pro-war rallies. Liberals often contend that station owners and advertisers, being businessmen, prefer to promote a conservative message. But the people in radio reject that. They insist it's all about money.
MICHAEL HARRISON: Ratings and revenue drive radio decision-makers, not politics.
TERENCE SMITH: Bottom line or not, liberal hosts are so rare, that Harrison jokingly created one, playing a costume character he called the "Lone Liberal," brandishing the searchlight of truth. The Lone Liberal debated conservative talk show hosts to laughter all around.
MICHAEL HARRISON: Killing him off was one of the hardest things I ever did, you know, because it had took on a life of its own.
The start of a liberal radio talk network
TERENCE SMITH: But the late Lone Liberal may soon be replaced by some live ones.
Jon Sinton has been hired by some wealthy Democrats. They've put up more than $20 million to start a liberal radio talk network they hope will tap a largely unserved audience.
JON SINTON: Just from a pure business perspective, it appeared to us that you could drive a truck through this hole in the market. So it became very clear to us that from a business perspective, the opportunity was huge.
But it's also clear to us, civically I think we feel, that balancing the discussion would be good for the democracy.
TERENCE SMITH: He says liberal talk radio failed in the past because people won't tune in to a liberal on a conservative talk station any more than they'll tune in for rock 'n roll on a country music station.
JON SINTON: People tune in to hear Rush or Sean, and they want to hear them rant and rave about Bill Clinton. When you plop a liberal host down in this very hostile landscape, he is going to be like playing Led Zeppelin records on a country station. It just doesn't make sense.
TERENCE SMITH: So it's crucial then to have it all of the liberal tone?
JON SINTON: I believe so, yeah.
TERENCE SMITH: So, Sinton's network will offer liberal programming 24/7, with an emphasis on humor and satire.
Al Franken, the comedian, will be one of his headliners.
AL FRANKEN: We have to fight back. We all have to fight back. All of us here.
TERENCE SMITH: Franken has been making a good living lately bashing conservatives. More than 600 people showed up at this bookstore when he came to plug his best-selling satirical new book that attacks talk radio and other conservative media.
AL FRANKEN: We have been taking it and taking it on the left.
TERENCE SMITH: The left versus right war of words can get downright ugly at times.
In May, Franken battled it out with conservative talker Bill O'Reilly at a book-and-author luncheon in Los Angeles. Franken accused O'Reilly of repeatedly lying about a journalism award won by a program O'Reilly had anchored.
AL FRANKEN: So, Bill, I'm sorry I called you one of the many people who do lie in my book.
BILL O'REILLY: I could go on all day.
AL FRANKEN: I know you could.
BILL O'REILLY: And I know you could too.
AL FRANKEN: You just about have.
BILL O'REILLY: We're supposed to be on here 15 minutes. This idiot goes 35. All he's got in six-and-a-half years is that I misspoke, that I labeled a Polk Award a Peabody. He writes it in his book and tries to make me out to be a liar.
AL FRANKEN: No, no, no, no, no.
BILL O'REILLY: Shut up. You had your 35 minutes. Shut up!
AL FRANKEN: This isn't your show, Bill.
BILL O'REILLY: This is what this guy does.
TERENCE SMITH: O'Reilly's employer, Fox News, sued Franken over the book, but the judge dismissed the suit.
Franken says he's going on talk radio for the same reason he wrote his book: To battle the right-wing media.
AL FRANKEN: I'm a liberal, and I'm not going to stand for this baloney that's coming from the right. I just won't stand for it any more.
TERENCE SMITH: What can we expect from you in talk radio?
AL FRANKEN: Some commentary, some ridicule. Some comedy, more ridicule. How Bush is lying on whatever he's lying about that day or that week. Then probably a little analysis of what we've been hearing from Rush and what we've been hearing from O'Reilly and what we've been hearing from Hannity -- and then maybe a little music. I have a beautiful voice.
AL FRANKEN: Fight! We're gonna get this guy outta there!
TERENCE SMITH: The new liberal radio network, starring Franken and others, is scheduled to begin broadcasting in January, in time for the presidential primaries.
Conservatives and many others in radio doubt it will succeed. Liberals are keeping their fingers crossed.
[Editor's Note: Rush Limbaugh is taking a 30-day hiatus from his radio program while he undergoes treatment for an addiction to prescription pain medication. He told his listeners of his dependency Oct. 10. In the meantime, Limbaugh's show will be covered by a variety of guest hosts.]
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/28/2003 5:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Krugman goes into some details on how the US is antagonizing moderate muslim leaders and being harmed in the battle against terrorism as a result.
In the end, he makes the very apropos remark that with such serious issues we need to be deciding as a nation, it is utter folly for this upcoming election to be predominated by the cultural/religious wars. Evangelical Christianity's collective witness will depend on whether or not a cultural detente can be acheived and we can learn to be more autonomous and reflective over how we use our political capital.
dlw
A Willful Ignorance
October 28, 2003
By PAUL KRUGMAN
According to The New York Times, President Bush was
genuinely surprised to learn from moderate Islamic leaders
that they had become deeply distrustful of American
intentions. The report on the "perception gap" suggests
that the leader of the war on terror has no idea how badly
that war - which must, ultimately, be a war for hearts and
minds - is going.
Mr. Bush's ignorance may reflect his lack of curiosity:
"The best way to get the news," he says, "is from objective
sources. And the most objective sources I have are people
on my staff." Two words: emperor, clothes.
But there's something broader going on: a sort of willful
ignorance, supposedly driven by moral concerns but actually
reflecting domestic politics. Surely it's important to
understand how others see us, but a new, post 9/11 version
of political correctness has made it difficult even to
discuss their points of view. Any American who tries to go
beyond "America good, terrorists evil," who tries to
understand - not condone - the growing world backlash
against the United States, faces furious attacks delivered
in a tone of high moral indignation. The attackers claim to
be standing up for moral clarity, and some of them may even
believe it. But they are really being used in a domestic
political struggle.
Last week I found myself caught up in that struggle. I
wrote about why Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia's prime minister
- a clever if loathsome man who adjusts the volume of his
anti-Semitism depending on circumstances - chose to include
an anti-Jewish diatribe in his speech to an Islamic
conference. Sure enough, I was accused in various places
not just of "tolerance for anti-Semitism" (yes, I'm Jewish)
but of being in Mr. Mahathir's pay. Smear tactics aside,
the thrust of the attacks was that because anti-Semitism is
evil, anyone who tries to understand why politicians foment
anti-Semitism - and looks for ways other than military
force to combat the disease - is an apologist for
anti-Semitism and is complicit in evil.
Yet that moral punctiliousness is curiously selective. Last
year the Bush administration, in return for a military base
in Uzbekistan, gave $500 million to a government that,
according to the State Department, uses torture "as a
routine investigation technique," and whose president has
killed opponents with boiling water. The moral clarity
police were notably quiet.
Why is aiding a brutal dictator O.K., while trying to
understand why others don't trust us - and doing something
to create that trust - isn't? Why won't the administration
mollify Muslims by firing Lt. Gen. William Boykin, whose
anti-Islamic remarks have created vast ill will, from his
counterterrorism position? Why won't it give moderate
Muslims a better argument against the radicals by opposing
Ariel Sharon's settlement policy, when a majority of
Israelis think that some settlements should be abandoned,
and even Israeli military officers have become bitterly
critical of Mr. Sharon?
The answer is that in these cases politics takes priority
over the war on terror. Moderate Muslims would have more
faith in America's good intentions if there were at least
the appearance of a distinction between the U.S. and the
Sharon government - but the administration seeks votes from
those who think that supporting Israel means supporting
whatever Mr. Sharon does. It's sheer folly to keep General
Boykin in his present position, but as Howard Fineman
writes in a Newsweek Web-exclusive column, the
administration doesn't want "to make a martyr of a man who
depicts himself as a Christian Soldier, marching off to
war."
Muslims are completely wrong to think that the U.S. is
engaged in a war against Islam. But that misperception
flourishes in part because the domestic political strategy
of the Bush administration - no longer able to claim the
Iraq war was a triumph, and with little but red ink to show
for its economic plans - looks more and more like a
crusade. "Election Boils Down to a Culture War" was the
title of Mr. Fineman's column. But the analysis was all
about abortion and euthanasia, and now we hear that
opposition to gay marriage will be a major campaign theme.
This isn't a culture war - it's a religious war.
Which brings me back to my starting point: we'll lose the
fight against terror if we don't make an effort to
understand how others think. Yet because of a domestic
political struggle that seems ever more centered on
religion, such attempts at understanding are shouted
down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/28/opinion/28KRUG.html?ex=1068358108&ei=1&en=e2402f44ba167285
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:18 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|