Note: The first entry was sent last night.
David—
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponWhat was the first line of Allen Ginsberg's poem "Howl"? "I've seen the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness." Could this be applied to Howell Raines? Mickey Kaus notes elsewhere in Slate the Rainesian Enron obsession (today's Times Enron harvest: nine stories and an editorial, which beats today's terrorism harvest by one). Actually, I enjoy Raines' passions: The tension between his natural dudgeon and the Times' Gray Ladyship has always been an entertaining show—and will be the source of obsessive interest now that he's in charge of what we, in the news business, laughingly call objectivity. So far, so good, I think: Raines' energy has really juiced the Times' coverage of the big stories (as for liberal bias, the Times' domestic policy "reporting"—on issues like health insurance, welfare reform, race, and religion—has long languished in a niche between the New Republic and The Nation; I don't suspect that will change). Howell's Enron campaign may be bloated but where else—unless I've missed it—did we learn that many of the Enron documents were shredded horizontally?
But enough of that. Striking thing to me recently, and definitely today, is how the Bush administration's handling of the two big issues—terrorism and Enron—so effortlessly conforms to the DNA of both political parties in the television age. Republicans are great overseas and dreadful on the economy. Democrats are uncertain—either too aggressive or not aggressive enough—overseas and excellent on the economy. (Jimmy Carter, sadly, wasn't very successful at either.) The Republicans' most delightful virtue overseas—aside from seeing the world as a contest between freedom and utopian extremism—is their willingness to ignore the feckless natterings of the Europeans. Reagan did it when he insisted on placing the Pershing missiles (which, in fairness, Carter had proposed) in Germany, and when he pursued Star Wars, and when he called the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Bush 41 dragged the Euros along on the Gulf War, although he did listen to Colin Powell about ending the campaign prematurely. Bush 43 seems likely to ignore Powell and the Euros on the treatment of the terrorists at Camp X-Ray. And he's right: We should be interrogating the hell out of them by any means necessary. (Those who disagree should make their argument to the nine families in my little suburban town who lost loved ones on Sept. 11.)
As for the economy, the White House likes to say that Enron is a financial, not a political scandal. Nonsense. As Sebastian Mallaby notes in today's Washington Post, it is a metaphoric scandal: Just as Democrats mythologize the poor, Republicans mythologize the rich. Democrats are happy, if a bit uncomfortable, taking Ken Lay's money, but Republicans really, really like these plutocrats, consider them friends, patriots, scintillating dinner partners, and experts on what's great for the economy. What's great for the economy, however, is whatever helps all those small businesspeople who aren't plutocrats. I noted in Howell's Times, once again, that 37 percent of the Bush tax cut goes to the top 1 percent. Sheer fiscal pornography. A question: Why didn't Bush use that money to semi-privatize Social Security?
on the Fray
Is the Democrats' Health Care Fight a "Prisoner's Dilemma" or a "Battle of the Sexes"?
Sorry, the Iranian Regime Isn't Going To Collapse Anytime Soon
How Vegetative Patients Really Communicate With the Scientists Who Scan Their Brains
The Minstrel Origins of the Phrase "Who Dat?"
Why We Shouldn't Bother Cleaning Up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch
No Director Has Done More With Rubble Than Roberto Rossellini
Wednesday Notes From the Fray Editor:
The main topic in the Fray is the State of the Union speech. REW-OEM explains here why he was tempted to join the 84% but ended up in the 16%, and asks "Why is it not possible to respect and applaud President Bush's positively spun and well transformed public demeanor, acknowledge his strength and steadfastness in difficult times, and yet still question the will and wisdom of his plans for our future?" More questions: Anita tries to answer Joe Klein's "how do you convince people that a certain selflessness is good for the soul…?" John-Paul Spiro read "bourgeois democratic nations…don't breed poisonous ideological groups" and wants to ask "What do you call Timothy McVeigh?" Why does Peter Lahey feel like a character from Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Click here to find out.
Reader Comments From The Fray:
What Brooks calls idealism could itself be called, and often has been, imperialism or the spread of global capitalism or an arrogant disrespect for the sovereignty of other nations. To define the "spreading" of any cultural force or view (democracy, capitalism, or hmmm say Christianity) by force as "idealistic" seems on the face of it absurdly ethnocentric and arrogant. One must, like Hegel, be willing to assert that one's culture represents the historical pinnacle and telos of human endeavor--in which case, every other country, including Great Britain (with their nasty socialist ways!) would have to be invaded and made to conform to the US Constitution in the name of American idealism. To suggest, as Brooks does, that bourgeois democracy represents the best that can be aspired to--well, that's a dim thought, made no brighter by being pasted with the shiny label of "idealism."
--J
(To find or answer this post, click here .)
Monday Notes From The Fray Editor:
Always check your quotations or the Fray will get you. All together now: "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness." (We'll miss out the "starving hysterical naked" bit.) Other phrases that caught readers attention were "by any means necessary" (in regard to questioning suspects) and "congenital DNA" (What other kind is there, asked one poster.) Urquhart says Klein "gets points for use of the word 'dudgeon,' which I've never seen outside of a Wodehouse novel." And there are plenty of discussions on Enron and the economy.
Reader Comments From The Fray:
Klein thinks we should be "interrogating the hell out of them by any means necessary." Does this include torture? I'd like to hear his opinion. And his reference to the nine families who lost loved ones is weak. Yes, we should remember the damage done by the terrorists. But that doesn't mean that every policy argument needs to have the approval of the relatives of the victims.
--Leonard
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
It seems to me the public's indifference about the extent of Enron's dealings with the Bush administration says more about the public than it does about our need to know. I doubt Cheney would risk the potential political damage of a court dispute if he didn't think the contents of his meeting notes were potentially more explosive. If Cheney's right, and this is just Dem hype, then prove us wrong and release the documents. Enron shareholders got screwed, in part, by a lack of corporate transparency. Cheney's claim that disclosing these documents could impair future leaders' ability to consult with corporation without fear of public scrutiny is, at best, disingenuous, at worst, more of the same opaqueness that got us in this mess.
--John Rogers
(To find or answer this post, click here.)