Tested Every Day

by Libby Sternberg

 

A recent Tom Friedman column found its way into my Facebook newsfeed, like a piece of newspaper  floating down a rapidly moving river, appearing several times as various "friends" posted it. The upshot of the column is that we need another political party in the U.S., something to replace that intransigent Republican group that is so riven by special interest strife, it can't compromise on the important issues of the day.

 

First, let me say how refreshing it was to read Mr. Friedman arguing to keep at least two parties in our system. Lately, he seems to be besotted with love for the one-party rule of China.

 

That aside, what struck me about his argument was how easy it was to turn it on its head. Every sin he accused Republicans of could be found equally and obviously in the Democratic soul, as well. In fact, I did a little Bizarro World editing of Mr. Friedman's main point and came up with a paragraph listing the Democratic special interests--everything from abortion rights zealots to union leader stalwarts to Progressives who want to chuck capitalism altogether--that keep Democrats from compromising.

 

And then I asked myself: why can't my liberal FB friends see this obvious flaw in Friedman's piece?  They're not stupid people. The ones who posted his column are smart, some with positions in universities, certainly all people who care deeply about the country.

All they had to do was flip the argument around to one where their "team" was on the receiving end of the criticism and ask themselves if it's true in this instance, too. If so, then is the critic's original point still valid or is there a deeper story here?

 

In the case of this Friedman column, you'd have to come up with a mountain of "yeah, but" qualifiers to make the switch invalid, to prove that Democrats weren't equally or more guilty of lack of compromise. Maybe a steaming mountain of caveats, if you get my drift.

 

But Friedman's column isn't the only one that's easily debunked. There are a whole swarm of Facebook pictures, slogans, petitions...whatever--usually traced back to some arm of Moveon.org and George Soros's money--that these friends regularly grab on to and repost without much thought, it seems to me, given to the underlying issue. They become rapidly moved by what I call the Outrage Industry, rushing to nail to the Facebook church door their angry complaints. (The Outrage Industry, by the way, doesn't necessarily have to have an impact on a particular issue to be successful. I'm sure their own coffers swell whenever they get followers het up about something.)

 

So, again, my question is: why do these bright liberal friends thunder, herdlike, off to "like" whatever this Outrage Industry spews forth?

 

Well, my theory is: they're not used to having their ideas challenged. Oh, I know, I know. How can I make such a sweeping generalization? Surely some of them are used to challenges to their beliefs? Maybe. But, if they live in the same world I do, probably rarely.

 

You see, conservatives, even center-right gals or guys, have their views challenged from sunup to sundown. From the moment you flip on the morning TV, you're seeing some newscaster repeat a Democratic talking point or simply not covering stories that are critical of Democrats or liberals.

 

How about these recent examples:

 

• The mainstream media's coverage of the Occupy movement versus Tea Party demonstrations: the former was treated as a grassroots protest of value, the latter as surly, gun-loving racists with sinister motives.

• The lack of expansive mainstream media coverage of two big administration scandals: the failure of several green energy companies funded by stimulus money despite warnings from experts; and the Fast and Furious gun scandal where Attorney General Eric Holder has given conflicting accounts to Congress.

• The absence of setting the record straight when the president blamed Republicans during difficult policy battles--when his party, not Republicans, controlled Congress.

• The double standard on sex scandals: Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards's affair was only dragged into the mainstream media when the National Enquirer outed the story, while presidential candidate Herman Cain's alleged sexual harassment of women was given Watergate-like coverage in the mainstream media with conflicting and thin backup for evidence.

• And, just this morning, Mika Brzezinski's slavish adoration of the president's just-released budget. (She proudly displayed a lipstick bedecked copy of the budget on MSNBC's Morning Joe. Way to go, Mika. You set women journalists back a few decades with that stunt, even if you do work for a network that leans forward left).

 

 

The one exception to this kind of coverage is Fox News, of course. But it's the ONE exception. And if some liberals had their way, it would be put out of business. Fox isn't perfect. I know that. But at least they will cover stories that challenge the liberal outlook.

 

Even if you're not a news junkie, your conservative ideas are still put to the test when you flip on television during prime time. There you're treated to a parade of stories, dramatic and comedic, that often portray the villain/buffoon as a conservative-minded homophobic, gun-loving, woman-hating, Muslim-despising, evangelical preacher/Wall Street financier/white father/deranged Iraq war veteran (Law & Order has about a million variations on that plot).

 

So at the end of the day, if you're a conservative, you're pretty used to having your worldview gobsmacked a couple dozen times or more. And if you're thoughtful, you...well, think about it. You ask yourself: is that true? Are those thoughts and ideas real and valid? You're tested, in other words, and you learn to look more deeply into what the news industry, Hollywood, or the Outrage Industry floats in front of you.

By the way, you don't turn off that analysis when you encounter ideas that jibe with what's already in your ideological wheelhouse. You still ask yourself if the ideas are true, if there's a counter argument that's valid. (For a good example of lively conservative discussion and debate, not always in agreement, read the National Review's blog The Corner.)

 

I'm sorry, liberal buddies. I don't think you face that same test every day. And sometimes, on Facebook, at least, it shows.
__________

 

Libby Sternberg is a novelist. Her website is here.

 

Checking the President's Presser, and Another Great Response to Elizabeth Warren

by Libby Sternberg

As noted previously, the mainstream press is dominated by liberals, or at least by journalists sympathetic to liberal talking points. So it often surprises me when a major mainstream news source actually does render a dispassionate, nonpartisan take on a political story. Such is the case with the Associated Press, which offers a "fact check" of President Barack Obama's press conference yesterday in which he complained of Republican opposition to everything in his jobs bill and touted previous bipartisan support for ideas he's offering. Hint: both claims are not true. Read the full article here.

Back to Elizabeth Warren, who is trying to win the Democratic Senatorial primary in Massachusetts so she can challenge incumbent Republican Senator Scott Brown for the seat. Ms. Warren made a statement recently that flew around social media and leftwing blogs like, well, a viral post. The original statement can be found in this previous post (along with a parody of the remarks). To summarize: she believes no one in America achieves anything without the help of government-funded programs, which she calls the "social contract."

Conservative columnist George Will demolishes her argument in a very thoughtful, well-reasoned column here.  My fave line: using a William F. Buckley quote, Mr. Will likens Ms. Warren to a "pyromaniac in a field of straw men."

Leaps of Faith

by Libby Sternberg

Over at a New York Times blog, Bill Keller has decided to write about faith.

Scratch that, not faith in general. He's interested in what role religious faith plays in the lives of the presidential candidates.

Nope, scratch that again. He's interested in faith's role in the lives of Republican presidential candidates.

As numerous commentators have pointed out elsewhere (including in the comments section of the blog post itself), Mr. Keller and many in the media were not at all interested in exploring faith's role -- in particular, the role of the candidate's church -- when Senator Barack Obama was seeking the presidency. They only seem interested in it when they're not too keen on the party of the candidates.

Bill Keller believes in...?

Nonetheless, are Mr. Keller's questions out of line? No, not at all! I've come to the conclusion that the more we know about a president's past, including his or her beliefs and how they might have evolved over time, the better able we are to predict what a candidate will be like as a leader. 

Forget listening to candidates' promises. I know it will shock you, but candidates often, well, fudge the truth to get people to like them and vote for them. Yes, I know -- it's disappointing. But it happens.

Candidates also have no crystal balls that will show them precisely what challenges they'll confront in office, challenges that might cause them to rethink a previously stated position or promise. Didn't FDR promise, after all, to keep the country out of foreign wars?

No, the best way to vet candidates, I've decided, is to dig into their characters and what they've said and done in the past. Looking at their religious beliefs is part of that.

The problem with religious belief, though, is that it is intensely personal and often complex. Even for the outwardly ardently religious,  internal debates probably rage about God's mercy and justice, especially when sorrow afflicts one's life.

Listen to any minister's Sunday sermon in any church in America on any weekend in the year, and you hear those complicated issues discussed -- by people who make a living in the church, by people whose faith, one would assume, is secure.  Yet many of them might be hard-pressed to give simple answers to some of the snarky --yes, snarky -- questions Mr. Keller poses.

But wouldn't it be wonderful to have a real and thorough discussion on issues such as faith/Constitution conflicts or the legal ramifications of the Establishment versus the Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment, or whether the search for the "missing link" in evolution theory means the theory is flawed, or whether "Dominionism" as a tenet of any faith (not just Christian faith) is a threat to religious freedom?

Let's put it all on the table. Let's have a real rumble over these issues -- including all candidates, the incumbent among them.

But you know what? I'm guessing that Mr. Keller isn't really all that interested in that discussion. I'm guessing that Mr. Keller wants the candidates' thoughts -- wait, the Republican candidates' thoughts -- on his questions not so much because he's really curious about the answers as he's anticipating writing his response to the answers. My guess is that his response will begin with a strongly implied "Aha!" followed by a "now we know so-and-so is...." (insert synonyms for knuckle-dragging cretin here).

The media's role, say some wags, is to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted." I actually like to think of their role as afflicting the powerful -- no matter who the powerful are, what party they belong to, what business or nonprofit they run.

Mr. Keller's questions indicate he's only interested in afflicting Republicans. As to those whose political views align with his -- including those at the peak of power --he's willing to make a leap of faith.

Chris Matthews as Mr. McGuire

by Libby Sternberg

As mentioned previously, I watch a lot of MSNBC. In fact, I have it on right now. Not liking that color green on you, Mika.

Watching so much of this network means I get to see their own promotional ads a great deal, and they often have me scratching my head wondering why their marketing gurus thought these would be effective enticements to watch their shows.

All the MSNBC promo ads feature their marquee hosts talking about a political or policy topic, ostensibly to demonstrate to the audience the level of discourse you'll find on the various shows, the thoughtful exploration of issues, albeit from a liberal point of view.

The problem is that each ad seems to communicate just the opposite to me. Instead of thoughtfulness, the ads telegraph simplistic misunderstanding of their opponents, and some of the ads, in fact, contain an implicit criticism of those who might disagree with their point of view.

Take the Lawrence O'Donnell spot, for example, which has him talking about immigration, telling viewers that if they understand how "this country was built on immigration," they'll understand the "added value" immigrants bring. He ends by saying something about how if we "close the door," we change who we are.

But who ever said we should close the door on legal immigration? Most of the debates and policy suggestions I've seen have focused on illegal immigration. Nice job, Larry. You insult your audience by ascribing unfair attitudes to them, that they dislike all immigrants.

Then there are Rachel Maddow's spots, which lately have featured her talking about America's past investments and its legacy or....something. My favorite is the one with her in front of the Hoover Dam gushing about how a country, not local towns and states, has to build such mammoth projects. Get with the program, people, she seems to be saying. You've given up on American greatness.

But does anyone seriously believe she would have supported something like the Hoover Dam's construction, a project that probably had profound environmental impact on the area? I don't know about you, but I envision Rachel M in the front lines of protest groups trying to block that kind of big project today.

My favorite spot, however, belongs to Chris Matthews.  He sits on an unidentified Washington rooftop with the White House and Washington Monument in the background, his right hand in his pocket, conveying a sort of avuncular congeniality (the exact opposite of the approach he takes on his show, Hardball -- I mean, c'mon, just read the title of the program and you catch its gestalt).

"Plastics"

Matthews talks about President Obama's distinctive background and how those who criticize him for being un-American...or something...are wrong because the president is a living, breathing example of "American exceptionalism." (It's hard to find this ad on youtube, by the way.) At the end of this ramble, Matthews pauses for a beat, then looks at the camera and says with thrill-up-the-leg sincerity: "American exceptionalism" as if those of us who disagree with the president obviously don't get how darn special he is.

Let's leave aside for the moment whether it's wise to use that phrase ("American exceptionalism") to describe Obama, who rejected it as a singular description of his own country in an interview a couple years ago, saying he believes in American exceptionalism, but he suspects the Brits "believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks...in Greek exceptionalism" (and yes, I'm aware of the arguments from those who think this quote was taken out of context, but unless he goes on to say, "scratch that, what I really meant was..." I'm not sure you can airbrush it out).

Let's instead focus on the chuckle this little bit of theater produces whenever I see Matthews utter those words.

When Matthews pauses, then says "American exceptionalism," I can't stop myself from thinking of Mr. McGuire's exchange with Dustin Hoffman's Ben Braddock character in The Graduate:

Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Ben: Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Ben: Yes, I am
Mr. McGuire: Plastics.

Every single time I hear Chris Matthews smugly say "American exceptionalism" to describe President Obama, I'm sorry, I think of Mr. McGuire smugly saying "plastics" to the bewildered Benjamin Braddock.

McGuire completely misreads Ben Braddock, whose thoughts and worries are focused on what to do with himself now that he has graduated. Ben knows there are jobs out there, in plastics or elsewhere. He wants more than a job. He wants a life.

Similarly, Americans know President Obama has a great backstory, an inspirational tale of humble beginnings leading to great accomplishments. I venture to say that story makes most Americans extremely proud and happy. They get American exceptionalism. They embrace it.

But most Americans aren't focused on that right now. They're focused on jobs and an economy that will allow them to lead comfortable as well as meaningful lives.

It's all well and good that their president is a shining example of how anyone in American can rise to the top. They just want to stay afloat.

Twelve Grafs, One "Sorry"

by Libby Sternberg

New York Times columnist Joe Nocera recently called the Tea Party "terrorists" in a column. If the definition of news is any story with a "man bites dog" template, the Nocera name-calling surely doesn't qualify. He was one among many using words like "terrorist" for those whose opinions he didn't share.

Nonetheless, it's noteworthy when people who are paid to give thoughtful opinions end up being, well, thoughtless, so his name-calling column garnered attention.

It wasn't the kind of attention a commentator likes, however, since it focused on style and not substance.

Not to worry -- in his August 5 column, he apologized and said he won't do it again.

But you have to search for those golden words of regret. On second thought, don't bother. Here's the Cliff Notes version of the 12 paragraphs of his column:

Grafs 1 through 4: a summary of Nocera's working-class roots
Grafs 5 and 6: how awful the financial crisis is and how angry it makes people, including himself
Graf 7: how he hates incivility; the money quote -- "I apologize" (that's it in its entirety)
Graf 8 through 11: how awful the economy is and how awful Republicans are for doing things he doesn't like
Graf 12: he promises not to call anyone names again.

I'm sure conservatives weren't holding their breath for an apology, but his column hardly qualifies as one anyway. In it, he seemed to me akin to a child who, when caught with his hands in the cookie jar, says he's sorry but, gosh, darn it, he was so hungry because the dinner you cooked was awful to begin with.

There's something a little, oh, insincere, about the apology in that case. It sounds more like an excuse than a real declaration of contrition.

So, while I, as a conservative, would be happy to accept Nocera's apology for labeling folks terrorists, who, like me, believe the Republicans, while not perfect, are on the right track, I can't grant him absolution.

His confession was too small, too obscured, and too inauthentic.

False Memories

by Libby Sternberg

There have been a lot of references to Ronald Reagan lately, with President Obama quoting him to reinforce his own point of view during the debt ceiling debate, Democrats releasing a video of Reagan seeming to endorse their point of view, and pundits like Joan Walsh declaring that President Obama is the "Reagan" figure in the debate.

Leaving aside the disingenuousness of these comparisons -- yes, Reagan did once support raising taxes to get spending cuts he wanted, but later regretted the move, with one adviser calling it "the greatest domestic error" of the administration. Instead, let's look at this new-found love of a president that liberals loathed back in the 1980s.

I was no political or news junkie back then, but one of the few things that managed to seep into my youth-addled brain was the hatred of Reagan among Democrats. At that time, I was heavily involved in the arts world. I'd gone to a music conservatory, and I was singing with some choirs, opera companies and the like. During breaks, I remember hearing passionate grumbling about Reagan, and even a bitter denouncement of Nancy Reagan when she decided to replace the White House china. I recall her being criticized, too, for her choice of a mastectomy over a lumpectomy when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. (Does it get much lower than that?) I'm sure it would be ridiculously easy to find columns, commentary, news articles and more scathingly critical of Reagan during those years.

The point is, Reagan was not beloved at all by those on the left. He was loathed. So this new appreciation for him involves some "false memories."

Among those is one that's seeped into the greater consciousness-- the notion of Reagan, the Great Communicator. Whenever my husband and I would hear that appellation, we'd look at each other and say, "huh?"

We cringed watching Reagan in debates and answering questions from the press. He could give a good speech, sure, but isn't that the minimum standard of communication skill -- being able to read, without stumbling, words someone else has written for you?

We came to the conclusion that the Great Communicator label was, in fact, not praise but veiled insult. It implied that he was able to "sell" his ideas well, not that his ideas (of limited government and strong defense) had merit on their own.

Today, I picked up the Wall Street Journal to discover that Peggy Noonan, former Reagan speechwriter, was pretty much saying the same thing, as she discussed the problems President Obama faced during the debt ceiling debate. He famously told Rep. Eric Cantor not to "call his bluff" (a Freudian slip?) because he'd "take this to the American people."

He had used the Reagan analogy enough to actually believe it, I guess, and he also had mistakenly bought into the idea that Reagan prevailed because his speeches connected with the American people.

But taking "this to the American people" didn't work. Whatever his fine attributes, Obama can't be considered a "great communicator" any longer. His rhetoric no longer soars. The teleprompter is a constant reminder that his words are studied and carefully chosen, at least as much to avoid offense as to persuade.

And this brings me to Noonan's final point: "Democrats were sure Reagan was wrong," she wrote, "so they explained his success to themselves by believing that it all came down to some kind of magical formula involving his inexplicably powerful speeches. They misdefined his powers and saddled themselves with an unrealistic faith in the power of speaking." She went on:

 "But speeches aren't magic. A speech is only as good as the ideas it advances. Reagan had good ideas. Obama does not.

"The debt-ceiling crisis revealed Mr. Obama's speeches as rhetorical kryptonite. It is the substance that repels the listener."

I couldn't agree more. By misinterpreting the history of Reagan, President Obama mistakenly believes that rhetoric will win the day. Talk is cheap, though, and a skeptical American public has always known that. If they bought what Reagan was saying, it was because they liked the ideas, not the words themselves.