Thursday, August 28, 2008

Who's In, Who's Out

Who eats, who starves.

One of the metamessages of the coverage of the Democratic National Convention is the rearranging of the pecking order among politicians and those who make money off them. Of course, the media campaigns about blame and power have raged for months in both parties, but this week a lot has been made of the passing of the torch, the changing of the guard, the transfer of the gavel from Clinton people to Obama people. There are some generational and racial aspects to all of this, but in the main it's just what happens in politics.

Among the visible journalists there have been some handoffs and some fading stars too. Oblivion awaits some, and not a moment too soon in my opinion. I will not miss Tucker Carlson, the rich kid know-it-all magpie who was told, accurately in my opinion, by Jon Stewart that he and other Crossfire-ites were hurting the country. On Fox, new old names, fading names it appears, are Karl Rove, Lanny Davis and Howard Wolfson. None of them has a reason to advocate for better governance. As losers in the game of politics, they mostly have reasons to advocate for anything that will put food on their own tables. Rising stars are beautiful young black women, especially those with unpredictable political opinions. The media's idea of diversity and a nod to change.

We should not be confused by the talking points and the ideology. The drama is not about making a better country or about democracy or liberty. As often as “the American people” are referenced in political discourse, they really are an afterthought. They are extras in the drama that is about who decides what. Did we not see that play out in the tragedy of Katrina?

Partisan politics involves picking a side and staying with it and lying your ass off if necessary to make sure your side isn’t blamed or bested in the public square. Participants may start with ideals and scruples, but few maintain them in the rough and tumble of back-scratching and deal-making. That’s why “values politics” so often goes awry. The very idea of trying to adhere to any religious ideal while dealing for the power to promote those ideals is unworkable. The result is some deliberate obfuscation where even negative things are framed in positive terms. The term “pro-life” signifies no reverence for any life except the unborn. There is nothing wrong with that position, but the naming is untruthful and there goes the idealism. Much more accurate would be to call a position that is obviously against abortion while it may be in favor of killing enemies and criminals “anti-abortion”, but that wouldn’t sell.

And it’s all about sell. If nothing is sold, no one eats.

No comments: