On the Contrary

I am sitting here on the front porch thinking back on the coverage of the Democratic Convention and the announcement of the Vice President choice by John McCain and the same thought keeps running through my mind.  Is the 24/7 television media superfluous and are there any journalists left out there?  Are they just total buffoons?

Let’s just start with the Democratic Convention.  There were some wonderful speeches, but if you watched MSNBC or CNN (Only a moron would watch FOX news) what you got were interviews on the floor of the convention trying to find some disunity among the delegates.  As Media Matters so well documented, the “journalists” were searching for a controversy that did not exist, while there were major issues being presented from the podium.  Oh would it not have been nice if these “journalists” would have spent some time looking at what the Democrats were proposing and educating the viewer on the pros and cons of each issue.  What I thought was the biggest missed opportunity were the speeches given by “just regular Americans”, many of which had voted Republican up till now, but are switching their votes.  If the press would have interviewed these people, checked out their stories, and presented how the last eight years have destroyed their economic security, it could have been quite enlightening.  No, what we got was questions about Hillary’s sincerity, whether Bill will really support Barack, and never ending cocktail party chitchat about a soap opera that has nothing to do with the political ideas that are being put on display.  This election is about a new way of governing and finally throwing off conservative ideals that have hamstrung us for the last eight years and media was focused on trivia of personality.  It was Entertainment Tonight celebrity worship, not journalism.

But it gets worse.  Friday John McCain announces his selection for Vice President, conveniently timed to distract from the after glow of Barack’s speech and the criticisms he made of the John McCain’s policies.  The nominee is Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska.  Now what we really need to know is who this woman is, other than a woman, and why she is qualified to be Vice President.  What we got was mind numbing political strategy discussions which is nothing but opinion and has nothing to do with the issues.   The Washington Post on Saturday tells us the John McCain shows what a maverick he is with this pick.  Reallly?  If he were a maverick, he would have picked Joe Lieberman who he really wanted but the Republican hierarchy would not accept.  Instead he appoints a woman who appeals to the extreme right.  Some Maverick.  They can’t run on the issues because their policies have dismally failed.  So they are going to run on personality and hope the press takes the bait.  They did.

What we really need is an examination of this woman’s views and qualification to step into the presidency if John McCain falters.  For me it is simple.  She thinks evolution and creationism should be taught side by side.  Apparently she neither understands science or the court ruling that have said this violates the Constitution.  I would refer her to the Pennsylvania case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District to understand the legal findings of the court that intelligent design is just creationism and it is against the Constitution to teach as science.  When asked about Iraq and our policies there last year, she deferred saying she didn’t know much about that situation as she focuses on Alaska politics.  Great.  That is about the same level of understanding that the Neocons had when they got us into that war.  She believes that life begins at day one and that all abortions should be banned.  If you believe that, then you must believe God is the greatest aborter because the number of miscarriages far exceeds the number of abortions.  I wonder where she thinks all those souls go?  Oh, I forgot, we have faith.  Faith based thinking has got us where we are today.  We need someone who is rational and experienced, which she is neither.

Finally she is being touted as the “new” conservative, that is pragmatic.  The proof of this was in a story that she vetoed legislation that would deny same sex partners benefits.  So the story line is she is against same sex marriages, but pragmatically believes they should have benefits.  The reality as documented by Media Matters is that she vetoed it because her Attorney General advised her it was an unconstitutional law that would not stand up in court.  So here we have it:  A woman who has been mayor of a 6000 person town and Governor for less than 18 months, knows little to nothing about international affairs, represents all the social conservative issues that have kept this country bogged down in religious issues, and is a heart beat away from the presidency if John McCain falters?  It is a desperate attempt by the Republicans to rally the base and take the focus off of failed policies with this erratic pick.  Will our media start to focus on her qualifications and ask substantial questions about her policies?  Not likely as we will get 24/7 discussions of political strategy instead of an honest look at facts and policies.

I fear for this country and the state of its journalism.  We have endless discussion of the politics of an issue instead of real reporting of the impacts or potential impacts of policies.  We have journalists whose access to information is dependent on their ability to carry water for the politically powerful.  We have journalists who are too close to the subjects they are reporting, letting their feelings for their subject get in the way of objective observation.  We have journalists who by the nature of the 24/7 television news have become celebrities and egos who must conduct all the important interviews even when they are poorly prepared to ask intelligent questions or challenge claims of their subject.  We have partisan “political analysts” who discuss an issue that is really nothing more than promoting the talking points of each Party.  And finally we have journalists who feed on each other’s narrative until the press is creating the story, not objective reality.  They are not reporting on what is happening, but their opinion about what it means politically.  On the other hand, if you agree with me, then we don’t have journalists anymore, just personalities with opinions.  This country is in a great deal of trouble if this passes as journalism and with the declining ability of print journalism to survive, real reporting may be dying and with our ability to discern fact from allegation.

One note:  Some think that the internet and blogs will take the place of the print media.  But blogs like mine depend upon real reporters doing real research so we can actually intelligently discuss an issue.  Real journalism requires in depth research and reporting, and a standard of ethics that ensures that the facts are facts substantiated by more than one source.  Every important story we have had in the last eight years has come from reporters doing detailed interviews and research.  That includes the false justification for the War in Iraq, rendition of suspected terrorists, the spying on our citizens by our own government, torture, the lying and misleading of the press in the yellow cake uranium story, the firing of Attorney Generals for political reasons, and it goes on and on.  People like me depend upon real journalist doing their job to get to the facts so we can have a factual basis for challenging the noise machine.  If we loose that resource, we are done as a country.

I watched on television as the Democrats nominated the first black American to represent their party for President of the United States and I shed many tears of pride.  It was a great moment in the evolution of this country.  Of course there was the mainstream media trying to find a soap opera and create some dissent that just isn’t there anymore.  They have their own narrative and have been pursuing it as events have evolved to make that narrative obsolete.  Is Hillary really going to support Barack?  Will Bill come through?  Will Hillary’s supporters deliver?  It was a non-issue.  Hillary showed what she can do in her speech and in asking for unanimous consent in nominating Barack.  The Democrats did something they have never done before:  they were all running plays out of the same playbook.  It must be terribly disappointing for the 24/7 media personalities not to find someone out of step.  But they kept trying, because it is in their mind these guys aren’t following the narrative they wrote for this event.  What could happen next? Might we actually have to report what is going on instead of picking our stories to support the narrative we are selling?  Some of the most interesting speeches were ignored while they conducted inane interviews trying to generate some dissention.  Thank goodness for CSPAN which allowed me to hear some of the amazing stories these speakers told without the interference from the 24/7 talkaholics.

But forget all that.  I watched the nomination process with deep upwelling of pride.  I know, it was a choreographed vote, kind of, sort of.  Some States surprisingly threw all their votes to Barack in a show of unity.  But more importantly as I watched each State announce their state and take their 30 seconds (some went on much longer than that) of fame in the spotlight, I saw a cross section of America.  I saw Blacks and Latinos, Asians and Native Americans, and a very large contingent of women of all hues.  What I saw was a party made up of what makes America great and strong, our diversity.

It was the same when I watched the Olympics.  Teams from Africa looked, well African.  Teams from China looked Asian. And so it went till you got to the United States and the strength we showed was our diversity.  We looked like the whole world and it is a metaphor for what our nation is all about.  We bring the best out of the best regardless of nation of origin.  It is what makes us strong and different from any other country in the world.

In this mass of diversity I saw unity.  I saw States that were extremely proud of their accomplishments to unifying this country and give their citizens the best possible chance at succeeding.  They spoke of their pride in their access to schools and their school’s achievements.  Some States touted their ability to provide healthcare for the majority of their citizens.  The exhibited extreme pride in their past contributions to equality for all.  Massachusetts stood up and took great pride in being the first State to provide equality in marriage.  It was a great joyous moment about all that is right with America.  And I was so proud to be an American and part of that amalgamation of people and cultures with a common hope:  That America is still a place where hard work and discipline still pays off.  Where a black kid in a single parent home can be nominated for President of the United States.

And most of all I was proud of the message the Democrats have put on display:  Family matters and whether it is Barack, Michelle, or Joe Biden, it was their parents or parent pushing and supporting their kids that helped make the difference.  And in this country of equality, they got a chance and through their god given talents have achieved what they have achieved.  They talked about the importance of helping others.  That just making money is not enough.  We are all in this together.  That America is great as long as we continue the tradition of empowering our people to do what they can with their god given skills.  That in the Republican era we have just suffered through, that dream is fading and it needs restoring.

Now it is time to start to start taking direct aim at John McCain.  It is time to remind American what the Republicans have wrought and who John McCain really is.  It will hard because we all like John much as we love a family member who just doesn’t get it.  But for the good of the country it is important to show that John is in the last century and we really need to move on.  Bring on the Republican Convention or as I like to call it, the gathering of old fat white men who measure their success by their bank accounts.  The contrast will be sharp.  So which America do you belong to?

It was an interesting day for those of us who think like Democrats as we watched the opening of the Democratic Convention.  Ted Kennedy and Michelle Obama gave us a window into how people in Blue States think.  For those of us that think this way, the opening was a no-duh approach to our future.  But Red Staters don’t think like Blue Staters.  So I thought I would try to highlight what was the underlying message and the thinking patterns.

George Lakoff  (“The Political Mind”) has written extensively about the two thinking patterns that separate conservatives from progressives.  He has pointed out that we all use both patterns depending on how the issue is framed emotionally.  I will focus on the progressives since that was what was on display last night.

Progressives use empathy and responsibility in viewing most political ideas.  Empathy in that they see others and can feel their suffering.  More importantly they are driven to act on that empathy because they feel they have a responsibility for doing something about it.  The expression, “there for the grace of God, go I”, captures the empathy.  Michelle Obama in her speech emphasized the responsibility portion of this equation when she described how she had been motivated by Barack to quit her law firm job and get active in helping her community.

Here is where progressives differ from conservatives.  When progressives see misfortune or suffering, they know that even if you do work hard, sometimes it is not enough.  Conservatives see the helping hand as a free ride to scofflaws who have not towed the line and are abusing the system, but more about that next week during the Republican Convention.

Progressives see government as having two roles:  Protection, and empowerment.  Both conservatives and progressive would agree with the protection part.  Government’s have a responsibility to protect their citizens from harm through both a strong military and police force.  But here is where they part ways:  Progressives see government’s role as empowering people to be able to get ahead.  Conservatives see government as getting out of the way of those who can get ahead.  One sees government as leveling the playing field, and the other as a hindrance to those who work hard.  Progressives last night were calling for affordable healthcare for all, opportunity for all to get a world-class education,  protecting the environment, and economic opportunity in the form of a livable wage for all.  They see government’s role as the major force to providing these empowerments so that people who really do work hard, can get ahead.

Progressives believe in cooperation and nurturing.  We work together to solve our problems.  Conservatives object to this because they see this role of government as making people dependent.  They see it as a free ride instead of leveling the playing field and pulling us all up in the process.  Progressive see people suffering or poor and disadvantaged and want to help.  Conservatives see people suffering or poor and disadvantaged and see people who did not follow the rules and work hard.  That is why they equate wealth with morality and success.

But the biggest difference that was on display was in the framing of the arguments.  Michelle Obama framed the argument in terms of hope, dreams, and hard work.  And the framing here is the key.  If you have hope and optimism, then you can see our problems as challenges that we can all work on together, energizing our government to work for us to be the catalyst for solving these problems.  As Michelle Obama said, “They’ll tell them (our future childeren) how this time, we listened to our hopes, instead of our fears. How this time, we decided to stop doubting and to start dreaming.”

And that is the key difference in framing.  The Progressive want you focused on what we can do, and the Conservatives want you to be afraid.  Cindy McCain is off to Georgia to access the civilian casualties.  Now one has to asked how a little rich girl is better equipped to do this than the ton of journalists on the ground that have been kicking dirt down there for months.  But that is not the point.  She is going to come back to the convention and tell you that her husband, John McMean, is the only one who can protect us from the big bad Russians.  The world is a dangerous place.  Be afraid America, don’t dream, put big daddy John in charge and he will protect you.

The two different framings elicit two different emotional responses to the path that is being laid out by both parties.  I can only hope that the fear card has finally been overplayed.