“It is only after time has been given for a cool and deliberate reflection that the real voice of the people can be known.”
On the eve of 2008’s second U.S. Presidential debate, I am inclined to reflect on one of the more interesting statements from the first. Senator Barack Obama observed, “part of my job, I think, as President, is to make government cool again.” In that regard, the candidate faces an uphill battle. For thirty years, whatever efforts were made to get positive results from trickle-down economics have been exceeded by efforts to rally popular support for an ideology that characterizes government itself as “part of the problem.”
Millions of American voters consider themselves informed because of fantasies spun from the hot air of passionate extremism. Rather than recognize the limited technical parameters within which a tax cut is likely to promote growth, their dogma transmutes any tax cut proposal into a surefire remedy for the economic troubles of the day. Rather than recognize the legitimately constructive role new programs could play in promoting progress, their dogma demands nothing but venom for any economic act the state may take to promote the general welfare.
There is a legitimate difference of opinion about the effectiveness of campaigns to popularize this anarcho-capitalist ideology. Dissent persists. Heretical suggestions of imperfection in free markets are increasingly allowed to escape into mainstream media content. Sadly, to hoodwinked legions, any media not fully co-opted by the ideology of free market fundamentalism is to be dismissed by charges of bias . . . along whatever pesky facts they might happen to uncover.
This preference for reducing politics to a level approaching infantile, regurgitating the false narratives and avoiding absorption of real information, is grossly irresponsible. It is only natural that someone of a patriotic mindset would feel animosity toward organizations and individuals promoting and acting on these false narratives. Yet, like the central theory of trickle-down economics, the idea that it is right to fight fire with fire is nice, neat, simple, and generally wrong.
Having the right idea does not bestow the loudest voice. Perhaps more crucially, having the loudest voice is no assurance that it will sound out the right ideas. Americans of all political orientations have contributed energy to noise machines. Yet in this century, it is unmistakable that the substantive discourse of conservatives like William F. Buckley Jr. and Peggy Noonan has been replaced by the deceitful manipulations of conservatives like Karl Rove and David Frum. The leadership of the party in power lacks ability or the willingness to distance itself from blatant scoundrels and laughable incompetents.
The tenor of Senator John McCain’s campaign makes this unmistakable. At a time when both global and national economies are in severe turmoil, that organization opted to let today’s campaign efforts be dominated by personal attacks and sleazy innuendo. With a little less than their usual levels of restraint and discipline, Senator Obama’s campaign responded in kind. On the eve of a historic debate, both candidates have positioned themselves in a gutter where slander and trickery marginalize any role underlying realities may play.
A “fight fire with fire” mentality only insures that a clash will be heated. In the ideal, a fire may also shed some light. Given the nature of politics, such heated appeals more often wind up obscuring important realities with smoke. Alas, there is also a perception issue here. Credible analysis holds that John Kerry’s “above the fray” approach to slander and personal attacks in the 2004 campaign lost him some votes. A sufficient amount of dirty fighting from one campaign demands a measure of it from the other to avoid a popular perception of weakness (however misguided that perception may be.)
Yet the grave danger exists, as has long been the case with U.S.-Iraq policy, that saving face and perpetuating false narratives will take priority over making changes and popularizing accurate narratives. Early in his primary bid, Senator Obama called for “a new kind of politics.” Even granting that this call may have fallen on deaf ears across the Senate aisle, it should not be abandoned. For cooler heads to prevail, that which is most vulgar and primal about our politics must not be legitimized.
Perhaps nothing truly defines 21st century American politics better than the desperate need for cooler heads to prevail. Twenty men with boxcutters attacked this nation over seven years ago. Because of what twenty men with boxcutters did on a single morning, “everything changed.” In the absence of cool rational thought, that sort of rhetorical absolutism enjoys popular resonance. In the absence of cool rational thought, extremist policies may steamroll right over otherwise effective checks and balances.
Twenty men with boxcutters were the most effective terrorists in the history of terrorism. They were provided unwitting yet essential support by the sitting President, his speechwriters, his advisors, and many lesser officials in the executive branch. The United States of America was under threat by a criminal network with a demonstrated capability to deploy conventional bombs and knife-wielding fanatics. The group did benefit from private Saudi financial support and sanctuary in the Taliban-controlled portions of Afghanistan. Yet its single greatest asset was a U.S. Presidency eager to elevate these scum from a ragtag band of misanthropic cave dwellers into an overwhelming threat to the American way of life.
Shocked, saddened, and infuriated by a real national tragedy (and an emotional impact amplified through the manic properties of contemporary media,) our citizenry was in no position to insure that cooler heads would prevail. Rather than show real leadership by rising to the occasion, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their associates willfully exploited the situation to advance such barbaric policies as the pre-emptive defense, enhanced interrogation techniques, extraordinary rendition, and the unitary executive. All cloaked in clinical doublespeak, each one of them does more to undermine American liberty than any British tax act ever did.
It is right that people should be upset by all this. It is right that people should be upset that there is precious little in the way of substantive discourse emergent from American political conservatives. Perhaps at some rallies and special events, it is not entirely wrong to allow some of that negative emotion to be vented. Yet it is certainly wrong to ever let it displace calm cool rationality or cold hard facts.
To the degree that conservatives do express their views with support from earnest analysis and accurate information, that deserves responses supported by earnest analysis and accurate information. Even when conservatives support their views with only hotheaded bluster and misleading noise, responses should still be solidly supported by earnest analysis and accurate information. When it comes to political clash, perhaps the best approach to fighting fire is not with fire, but rather with ice (or at least a simple wet blanket.)
If our national leadership ever is to benefit from cooler heads in action, then advocates in possession of rational perspectives must step up with the dignity and poise required to actually be cool. If Presidential politics is to cease being a venue for mongers of fear and hate, it must become a stage for the projection of confidence and hope.
It is long past time for the demonization of the entire public sector to give way to a rational national debate about the role of government in American life. Our government is not based on inscribed tablets distributed by a burning bush. Our government is not shaped by manuals sent here from some higher intelligence. It is now, and always has been, shaped by the words of American patriots. In pursuit of the goal to make government cool again, there can be no finer start than to be cool whenever engaging in civic discourse.