Last year, I decided that Maureen Dowd had lost her verve. After a litany of weekly essays knifing Hillary Clinton and worshipping Barack Obama, she appeared robotic and unoriginal. But, Dowd's latest essay shows some of her old sparkle. In classic Dowd style, Dowd goes after the Republican Senators who have questioned Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's impartiality, temperament, and honesty. Dowd praises Sotomayor for maintaining her cool in the face of hostility, concluding that: "A wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not know that a gaggle of white Republican men afraid of extinction are out to trip her up." Regrettably, I agree.
Prior to the Sotomayor nomination, I published many essays on this blog that defend Republicans from liberal attacks. For example, I defended Michael Steele (here, here, here, and here), Sarah Palin (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), Rush Limbaugh (here and here), and John McCain (here, here, here, and here) from unfair criticism. I also criticized "the liberal media," liberals and Democrats, including President Obama, when other progressives refused to do so (too many links to list). Although I continue to criticize liberals, my search for material to defend the GOP has been largely unsuccessful since the Sotomayor nomination.
The GOP's False and Offensive Anti-Sotomayor Narrative
Despite her excellent academic and professional credentials, many Republicans have decided that she is an intellectual lightweight, a partial judge, a bigot, and an ideologue. Given her nearly 20 years of judging, if these allegations were true, then the hundreds of opinions she has written would back up the claims. Nothing in Sotomayor's record as a judge, however, legitimates the Republicans' allegations.
Lacking any credible proof that Sotomayor is unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court, Republicans have resorted to distortion. They have extracted one case (Ricci) from her long legal career, and despite the fact that several other judges reached the same conclusion as Sotomayor, Republicans have pointed to her position in the case to argue that she is biased against white men.
Republicans have also extracted one sentence from one speech that Sotomayor delivered, distorted its meaning, and have attempted to define Sotomayor with their own misrepresentation of her words. Clearly operating under White House directions, Sotomayor has (wisely) said that she should have chosen other words to convey her message. She even apologized for any pain her words caused (but conservatives oppose "victimology"). Nevertheless, the spewing continues.
Embracing Principles or Committing Political Suicide?
Sotomayor will sit on the Supreme Court. All of the Democrats and even some of the Republicans will vote to confirm her. Meanwhile, the Republican Party will likely take a political hit from the hearings -- especially among blacks and Latinos, whose support for the GOP is already in the toilet.
Ironically, Republican Senators like Jeff Sessions are leading the attacks against Sotomayor. President Reagan nominated Sessions for a federal district court judgeship, but his nomination never made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Many committee members were not amused by some of Sessions's prior comments on race, which appear to praise the Ku Klux Klan and which describe the NAACP and ACLU as "un-American." Send in the clowns.
One could argue that the GOP is valiantly embracing its principles in the face of wide opposition and deep political risks. But that argument requires a showing that principles are actually dictating the behavior of Republicans. On that point, the record is weak. Portraying a highly successful woman of color with a long and distinguished judicial record as a dumb shrill racist partisan is not only factually inaccurate, but it amounts to political suicide for a party that needs to capture the attention of women, moderates, and persons of color. Rather than adhering to principles, it seems that the GOP is on a suicide mission. For those of us who favor a multi-party system, this is bad news.
Showing posts with label maureen dowd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label maureen dowd. Show all posts
Friday, July 17, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
The "Yes We Can" Movement Gets Sudden Reality Check!
As much as I appreciate passion and politics, the "yes we can" movement honestly made me a bit uncomfortable during the last year. OK -- very uncomfortable. To me, the movement (distinct from its leader), displayed a very naive understanding of the dynamics and complexity of true political change. In a very short time, however, it appears that Washington, DC -- the bastion of status quo preservation -- is delivering healthy and much needed reality checks to "pie in the sky" members of the cult of change. What are the signs?
* The withdrawal of Tom Daschle, one of Obama's chief supporters.
* The Republicans controlling much of the debate on the stimulus package - despite being heavily outnumbered in Congress and highly unpopular, according to most opinion polls.
* The vast majority of the public not supporting the stimulus in its current form (though it's the form largely advocated by the president).
* Obama will employ a kinder, gentler "rendition" program (also known as governmental kidnapping).
* And perhaps the most probative evidence comes from Maureen Dowd. Dowd, who for the last year has been stridently anti-Clinton and effusively pro-Obama, has finally employed her spiteful and acidic writing style to analyze the president. Here's a short quote from her latest smarmy essay:
She's baaaack. Dowd's decision to use her chainsaw writing style has upset some Obama supporters. Michael Stickings at The Moderate Voice, for example, says that Dowd has become "unreadable," and he longs for the days when she was "exposing Bushworld as the bubble of darkness it was." Dissenting Justice to Stickings: Dowd's demise started long before The King of Hope entered the White House.
* The withdrawal of Tom Daschle, one of Obama's chief supporters.
* The Republicans controlling much of the debate on the stimulus package - despite being heavily outnumbered in Congress and highly unpopular, according to most opinion polls.
* The vast majority of the public not supporting the stimulus in its current form (though it's the form largely advocated by the president).
* Obama will employ a kinder, gentler "rendition" program (also known as governmental kidnapping).
* And perhaps the most probative evidence comes from Maureen Dowd. Dowd, who for the last year has been stridently anti-Clinton and effusively pro-Obama, has finally employed her spiteful and acidic writing style to analyze the president. Here's a short quote from her latest smarmy essay:
It took Daschle’s resignation to shake the president out of his arrogant attitude that his charmed circle doesn’t have to abide by the lofty standards he lectured the rest of us about for two years.
Before he recanted, his hand forced by a cascade of appointees who “forgot” to pay taxes, his reasoning was creeping perilously close to that of the outgoing leaders he denounced in his Inaugural Address: that elitist mentality of “we know best,” we know we’re doing the “right” thing for the country, so we can twist the rules.
Mr. Obama’s errors on the helter-skelter stimulus package were also self-induced. He should put down those Lincoln books and order “Dave” from Netflix.
She's baaaack. Dowd's decision to use her chainsaw writing style has upset some Obama supporters. Michael Stickings at The Moderate Voice, for example, says that Dowd has become "unreadable," and he longs for the days when she was "exposing Bushworld as the bubble of darkness it was." Dissenting Justice to Stickings: Dowd's demise started long before The King of Hope entered the White House.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
On Low Roads and Hypocrisy: The Media, Sexism and Hillary Clinton
Apparently, the New York Times grew uncomfortable watching other media outlets attack Obama’s critics. Although the newspaper endorsed Clinton, it has now joined a barrage of pundits who have launched a full scale assault on ABC's debate in advance of the Pennsylvania primary.
Media's Summary: Clinton = Witch; Obama = Saint
The media's outrage demonstrates (yet again) that Clinton provokes the wrath of journalists who seemingly believe that their ethical and professional duties involve: (1) constructing and enforcing a de facto rule that prohibits any public criticism of Obama; (2) smearing Clinton and portraying her as a pathological liar, closeted-neoconservative, cold and conniving Tonya Harding in pantsuits, and as a threat to the Democratic Party; (3) denying and obscuring Obama's own weaknesses, deceit, shifting positions, and subtly negative campaigning; and (4) offering constant praise for Obama and anyone who supports him. New York Times columnists Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich have spent almost an entire year writing opinion pieces that scrutinize and condemn every dimension of Clinton or praise Obama’s character, ideas, and campaign. Content with the monotony of their own repetitive and predictable Clinton-Bashing, Dowd and Rich reach the same weekly conclusions. Clinton is a mean, deceitful, selfish, and heartless witch. Obama is an inspiring, smart, honest, and ethical leader.
Obama Can Appear "Positive" Because Media Does His Attacking
Obama benefits from a mainstream media and blogsphere that do his "dirty work" for him, which allows him to remain above the fray. Whatever Clinton says or does, a host of media outlets will seek and find or even invent fault. The New York Times, for example, recently rushed to discredit a story Clinton tells on the campaign trail concerning a young woman who lacked health insurance and money to pay for a doctor visit. This rather innocuous story -- which describes the plight of far too many poor people -- became headline news because it purportedly documented "yet another" Clinton "lie." News of Clinton’s "deceit" spread quickly. There was one problem: The story was true.
If the media had simply investigated the issue, rather than rushing to portray everything Clinton says as something unseemly, they would have discovered the veracity of her account. That did not matter. Smearing Clinton legitimizes media professionals among their colleagues, especially the white men. Media professionals can obtain street credibility if they uncover the newest reason why Clinton would melt if you heaved a bucket of water on her.
Obama, on the other hand, does not have to answer difficult questions or face relentless scrutiny. The toughest moment in his campaign surrounded the Reverend Wright controversy. The media held their collective breath searching for a way to spin this low point into triumph. The next day, Obama’s staff released a statement announcing that he would give two "major policy speeches" on race and the economy. The media reported exactly this: "Obama will give two major policy speeches in Philadelphia this week."
This is the only time I can recall seeing the media describe campaign speeches as "major" based solely on a candidate’s description of them. But it helped shape the mood for Obama's valiant return. The atmosphere was solemn and hopeful. Fittingly, change was also on the horizon. Soon the race speech would rise above mere "major" status and morph into a courageous, crucial, historic, and brilliant dissertation on race. Commentators passionately and uniformly praised the speech. Many of them compared Obama to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. But Dr. King never wore the safe "post-racial" label, and he died as a result of his sustained, courageous and organized efforts to combat racial injustice. Obama, by contrast, addressed racial justice in one fleeting moment solely to overcome a serious threat to his political campaign. Yet, his opportunistic usage of race was completely off-limits as a topic of serious inquiry. Only marginalized commentators like Shelby Steele and Thomas Sowell could even explore these questions. Good "liberals" could only offer effusive praise or (worse) silence.
Hutchinson's Summary: Clinton = Obama = Typical Politician
For the record, I do not endorse all of Clinton's political tactics, nor do I believe that moments like Wright-gate should derail a candidate. But Obama's response to the situation is just as "political" as Clinton's efforts to show her superiority and question her opponent's readiness for the presidency. They are both typical politicians. According to Obama's campaign narrative, however, he offers a new, kinder and gentler politics, even though "change," "hope" "unity," and "Washington-outsider" rhetoric have framed many previous campaigns.
Successful candidates must construct personal narratives that resonate with the public and inspire trust; Obama has accomplished this important task. But most media have uncritically accepted and have even strained to validate his campaign narrative in their reporting. This constitutes a terrible abdication of their important social function.
The Media and the "Isms" Factor
The blatant media bias also conflicts with liberal and progressive commitment to racial and gender justice. When liberal egalitarians spew endlessly about the inherent evil of Clinton and the unquestionable sincerity and rightfulness of Obama, this smacks of hypocrisy and disparate treatment. Their coddling of Obama also suggests that liberals, especially white liberals constantly yearning to prove how "post-racist" they are, suffer from the "bigotry of low expectations." This stereotype discounts the intellectual capacity of blacks, which could cause Obama’s supporters unconsciously to question his ability to take on a strong competitor, despite his frequently touted academic achievement and eloquence. The unprecedented efforts to insulate Obama from any measure of media or political scrutiny could stem from the operation of this stereotype.
Obama’s surrogates and the media have utilized a variety of responses to vilify his critics. Early on, his surrogates called them racists. Then they dismissed them as being "more of the same." Then they brushed them aside for wasting Obama’s time with "business as usual." Then they demanded that Clinton leave the race, which would undoubtedly reduce the opportunity to critique and raise questions concerning his relative fitness for office. His supporters have also dramatically described fairly standard campaign tactics as "knifing," "kneecapping" and tossing the "kitchen sink" at the first viable black presidential candidate (an argument which, ironically, validates Ferraro's statements). Obama’s guardians have predicted that Clinton's allegedly "divisive" campaigning will destroy the Democratic Party and weaken its nominee, an argument that requires the listener to forget that the Democrats have only managed to produce one two-term President since FDR.
But the New York Times exceeds the melodrama of many Obama protectors when its editorial asserts that Clinton has called out "the dogs" for Obama. The imagery used to describe Clinton and Obama consistently portray her as a conniving, ruthlessly violent old hag and Obama as a defenseless, frail, and effete "Negro" (also known as "boy"). The media’s blatant efforts to prop up Obama and demonize Clinton smack of a racial paternalism that is as rooted in white supremacy as segregation. Their disparate coverage also relies extensively on gender stereotypes, which should trouble all individuals who are truly committed to the advancement of civil rights. Yet many self-proclaimed progressives have condemned feminists who critique the media’s treatment of Clinton as being knee-jerk activists engaged in vulgar identity politics. Anti-feminism now joins post-racial (but still enough qualify as "real") blackness as newly minted leftist ideologies. Blacks have acquiesced in and legitimated this disturbing occurrence with their almost unanimous support for Obama.
This entire election has caused me to grow even more suspicious and cynical of liberals. It also confirms how utterly unhelpful media have become. A short time ago, the most powerful among these companies were "embedded" in military tanks in order to stream U.S. war propaganda domestically and throughout the world. Some, including the New York Times, later admitted to suppressing antiwar coverage or confining it to "second-page" status, but their apologies only came after popular support for the invasion dissipated, and the precious opportunity to educate the pre-war public opinion had long passed.
With respect to this campaign, the opportunistic New York Times endorsed Clinton, but now that everyone else is ready to burn her at the stake, they view her as the Democrats' worst nightmare. Similarly, the New York Times endorsed Senator McCain, but once he secured his party's nomination, it suddenly unveiled 25-year-old, unsubstantiated allegations of adultery and conflicts of interests surrounding McCain. The paper sat on the story and released it soon after its ability to influence the Republican contest had expired. Media actors have contributed heavily to the venomous atmosphere of this election. The media’s pernicious bias against Clinton and its uncritical stance toward Obama undermine the credibility of their efforts to police the tone of any candidate's campaign.
Media's Summary: Clinton = Witch; Obama = Saint
The media's outrage demonstrates (yet again) that Clinton provokes the wrath of journalists who seemingly believe that their ethical and professional duties involve: (1) constructing and enforcing a de facto rule that prohibits any public criticism of Obama; (2) smearing Clinton and portraying her as a pathological liar, closeted-neoconservative, cold and conniving Tonya Harding in pantsuits, and as a threat to the Democratic Party; (3) denying and obscuring Obama's own weaknesses, deceit, shifting positions, and subtly negative campaigning; and (4) offering constant praise for Obama and anyone who supports him. New York Times columnists Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich have spent almost an entire year writing opinion pieces that scrutinize and condemn every dimension of Clinton or praise Obama’s character, ideas, and campaign. Content with the monotony of their own repetitive and predictable Clinton-Bashing, Dowd and Rich reach the same weekly conclusions. Clinton is a mean, deceitful, selfish, and heartless witch. Obama is an inspiring, smart, honest, and ethical leader.
Obama Can Appear "Positive" Because Media Does His Attacking
Obama benefits from a mainstream media and blogsphere that do his "dirty work" for him, which allows him to remain above the fray. Whatever Clinton says or does, a host of media outlets will seek and find or even invent fault. The New York Times, for example, recently rushed to discredit a story Clinton tells on the campaign trail concerning a young woman who lacked health insurance and money to pay for a doctor visit. This rather innocuous story -- which describes the plight of far too many poor people -- became headline news because it purportedly documented "yet another" Clinton "lie." News of Clinton’s "deceit" spread quickly. There was one problem: The story was true.
If the media had simply investigated the issue, rather than rushing to portray everything Clinton says as something unseemly, they would have discovered the veracity of her account. That did not matter. Smearing Clinton legitimizes media professionals among their colleagues, especially the white men. Media professionals can obtain street credibility if they uncover the newest reason why Clinton would melt if you heaved a bucket of water on her.
Obama, on the other hand, does not have to answer difficult questions or face relentless scrutiny. The toughest moment in his campaign surrounded the Reverend Wright controversy. The media held their collective breath searching for a way to spin this low point into triumph. The next day, Obama’s staff released a statement announcing that he would give two "major policy speeches" on race and the economy. The media reported exactly this: "Obama will give two major policy speeches in Philadelphia this week."
This is the only time I can recall seeing the media describe campaign speeches as "major" based solely on a candidate’s description of them. But it helped shape the mood for Obama's valiant return. The atmosphere was solemn and hopeful. Fittingly, change was also on the horizon. Soon the race speech would rise above mere "major" status and morph into a courageous, crucial, historic, and brilliant dissertation on race. Commentators passionately and uniformly praised the speech. Many of them compared Obama to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. But Dr. King never wore the safe "post-racial" label, and he died as a result of his sustained, courageous and organized efforts to combat racial injustice. Obama, by contrast, addressed racial justice in one fleeting moment solely to overcome a serious threat to his political campaign. Yet, his opportunistic usage of race was completely off-limits as a topic of serious inquiry. Only marginalized commentators like Shelby Steele and Thomas Sowell could even explore these questions. Good "liberals" could only offer effusive praise or (worse) silence.
Hutchinson's Summary: Clinton = Obama = Typical Politician
For the record, I do not endorse all of Clinton's political tactics, nor do I believe that moments like Wright-gate should derail a candidate. But Obama's response to the situation is just as "political" as Clinton's efforts to show her superiority and question her opponent's readiness for the presidency. They are both typical politicians. According to Obama's campaign narrative, however, he offers a new, kinder and gentler politics, even though "change," "hope" "unity," and "Washington-outsider" rhetoric have framed many previous campaigns.
Successful candidates must construct personal narratives that resonate with the public and inspire trust; Obama has accomplished this important task. But most media have uncritically accepted and have even strained to validate his campaign narrative in their reporting. This constitutes a terrible abdication of their important social function.
The Media and the "Isms" Factor
The blatant media bias also conflicts with liberal and progressive commitment to racial and gender justice. When liberal egalitarians spew endlessly about the inherent evil of Clinton and the unquestionable sincerity and rightfulness of Obama, this smacks of hypocrisy and disparate treatment. Their coddling of Obama also suggests that liberals, especially white liberals constantly yearning to prove how "post-racist" they are, suffer from the "bigotry of low expectations." This stereotype discounts the intellectual capacity of blacks, which could cause Obama’s supporters unconsciously to question his ability to take on a strong competitor, despite his frequently touted academic achievement and eloquence. The unprecedented efforts to insulate Obama from any measure of media or political scrutiny could stem from the operation of this stereotype.
Obama’s surrogates and the media have utilized a variety of responses to vilify his critics. Early on, his surrogates called them racists. Then they dismissed them as being "more of the same." Then they brushed them aside for wasting Obama’s time with "business as usual." Then they demanded that Clinton leave the race, which would undoubtedly reduce the opportunity to critique and raise questions concerning his relative fitness for office. His supporters have also dramatically described fairly standard campaign tactics as "knifing," "kneecapping" and tossing the "kitchen sink" at the first viable black presidential candidate (an argument which, ironically, validates Ferraro's statements). Obama’s guardians have predicted that Clinton's allegedly "divisive" campaigning will destroy the Democratic Party and weaken its nominee, an argument that requires the listener to forget that the Democrats have only managed to produce one two-term President since FDR.
But the New York Times exceeds the melodrama of many Obama protectors when its editorial asserts that Clinton has called out "the dogs" for Obama. The imagery used to describe Clinton and Obama consistently portray her as a conniving, ruthlessly violent old hag and Obama as a defenseless, frail, and effete "Negro" (also known as "boy"). The media’s blatant efforts to prop up Obama and demonize Clinton smack of a racial paternalism that is as rooted in white supremacy as segregation. Their disparate coverage also relies extensively on gender stereotypes, which should trouble all individuals who are truly committed to the advancement of civil rights. Yet many self-proclaimed progressives have condemned feminists who critique the media’s treatment of Clinton as being knee-jerk activists engaged in vulgar identity politics. Anti-feminism now joins post-racial (but still enough qualify as "real") blackness as newly minted leftist ideologies. Blacks have acquiesced in and legitimated this disturbing occurrence with their almost unanimous support for Obama.
This entire election has caused me to grow even more suspicious and cynical of liberals. It also confirms how utterly unhelpful media have become. A short time ago, the most powerful among these companies were "embedded" in military tanks in order to stream U.S. war propaganda domestically and throughout the world. Some, including the New York Times, later admitted to suppressing antiwar coverage or confining it to "second-page" status, but their apologies only came after popular support for the invasion dissipated, and the precious opportunity to educate the pre-war public opinion had long passed.
With respect to this campaign, the opportunistic New York Times endorsed Clinton, but now that everyone else is ready to burn her at the stake, they view her as the Democrats' worst nightmare. Similarly, the New York Times endorsed Senator McCain, but once he secured his party's nomination, it suddenly unveiled 25-year-old, unsubstantiated allegations of adultery and conflicts of interests surrounding McCain. The paper sat on the story and released it soon after its ability to influence the Republican contest had expired. Media actors have contributed heavily to the venomous atmosphere of this election. The media’s pernicious bias against Clinton and its uncritical stance toward Obama undermine the credibility of their efforts to police the tone of any candidate's campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)