Mea Culpa
Let me apologize to Mike300 for simplifying his "Any Matter, Any Time" thread. His original post was much broader than my "comment". I probably should have posted a new article, but wasn't up to the effort. As important a topic as the Schiavo case is, especially for gauging where we are on the issue of life and its value (follow your heart McLeib), Mike3000 said much more.
Politics, and perhaps all intellectual query, has a reductive quality to it. Scoop out the guts, we just want the Jack-o-lantern. Sometimes this serves to focus and clarify...sometimes it just triggers an Amber Alert for the bathing baby. When you introduce a press infested with gossip columnist poseurs, well, discourse is the bloodiest casualty; et tu, Brute.
There are some sincere optimists in public office, but they don't get fed press attention and slowly starve. It should be no surprise that journalists of our day reduce to nothing more than fertilizer, so hold your nose and shovel through another New York Times "story".
Is the media the only antagonist in this story? No. The politicians have free will and can pander or not pander. However, media influence is as corrupting as the ever-pilloried "money", and that's a shame because were it honorable, it could be palliative.
It certainly is easy to point the finger outward and blame institutions...but what about the institution of "citizen"? Could we handle the straight dope from a real straight talker, not the kind that has to put it on the side of a bus to be noticed. The press may just be giving the people what they want so keep the Tums in arms reach. No optimist am I, I look forward to reading my clippings.
Here's hoping I'm at least in the ballpark...because I sure am juiced.
Posts
2 comments:
No need to apologize. Any matter, any time, a la carte.
Odds and ends:
*Who are our sincere optimists in public office? And how much does a politician's sincerity count when he or she is fundamentally out of step with your own politics and ideals?
*Politics and ideals: As cynical as Americans are taught to be, seeing the separation of the two as anything other than self-serving hypocrisy surprises me; yet we're illustrating here again and again, whether it's you and me in The Blogger's Fourth Amendment threads or you re: the Schiavo case a somewhat conflicted, but absolutely well-meaning willingness to sacrifice "good government" for the "right thing." McLieberman's last post got me thinking along these lines as well.
*Is the "right thing" that the public sacrifices its active role in "good government" for merely the cold comfort of mediated, voyeurisitc insignificance?
*Why does God need a starship?
It's all an expectation game. What do you expect from your leaders? I expect quality people serious about doing right by the people they serve. This is why I was proud of a Moynihan even though I disagreed with much of his politics. However, I think it is perfectly reasonable to see politicians as nothing other than a means to forward your own beliefs. In that case, there's no problem with voting for a weasel if you know the weasel will vote your way.
Pragmatism and idealism are leanings not determinants. Nothing is ever anything always - there is no perfect consistancy. I may lean towards idealism, but I am willing to be a pragmatist when it seems reasonable. That's why we can't tie people down like Gulliver and make them be what they seem to be. But, one needs to be able to justify why they may be swimming against their own currents. Just to keep it real.
I think good government must allow for efficiency and justice. The problem is that there is no consensus on those terms. I'm not sure I get why "good governement" would be different from the "right thing". I think you could be on the "let her live" or the "let her die" side of the Schiavo case and be either sincere and well-meaning or cynical and disgusting. What matters is "why". Motive is the egg we hunt for, opinion and action just the field in which it is hidden. But since motive can only be known by the actor, the rest of us are forced to guess. At best that guess can be an educated one and not completely arbitrary. I'm on record questioning Michael Schiavo's motives and I gave my reasons for why. I don't think I proved the case, but I think my argument shows it is reasonable to question the purity of his motives, and that has some implications.
The founding fathers argued that only land owners should vote. There is good reason for this. If you are invested in something you pay attention and act prudently. You can't afford to be just a voyeur. I question how invested we are in our lives, let alone our governments. Is this insignificance human nature or a sign of the times? Oh to be an immortal and know...but there can be only one!
Post a Comment