FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Blurring of Act and Audience

 

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
— Upton Sinclair

“It is possible to wake a man even from soundest sleep. But no amount of effort can wake one who is pretending to sleep.”
— Old Tamil saying

Together, these quotes just about sum up the second presidential debate and, in a larger sense, the tragedy of our politics.

When a voter asked him to identify three mistakes he had made, Bush hemmed and hawed before producing a wholly unsatisfactory reply. He had had ample time to prepare for this question: several months ago at his press conference in the White House, a reporter asked him the same question (to be fair, the reporter asked for just one mistake, not three — but the president was unable to come up with any). Forget Iraq. He could easily have used the opportunity to say, “Well, I take responsibility for everything that goes on in my watch. Obviously, 9-11 was a great failure, and the fact that none of us were aware of the magnitude of the threat does not make it any less of a burden for me…I have spent the rest of my term correcting that error.”  That would not only have put Kerry’s Iraq tap dance squarely centerstage, it would have also helped clear an atmosphere reeking of inanity.

Watching Bush’s challenger, one is reminded of what happens to many of us when balancing our checkbook. Unable to make the figures match, we eventually resign ourselves to the existing discrepancy, resolving to balance the numbers from here on out. No one believes his claptrap about ‘giving the president the authority’ and then being blindsided by him using it. But such is the power of Bush’s vapid struttings that they are willing put away Kerry’s fantastic explanation (in a lockbox?) and rejoice that the old veteran has at last begun to speak out on Iraq.

There is, of course, the frightening prospect that the president does think he is right. To echo what Al Sharpton said in one of the primary debates, “Let us hope he was lying, because the alternative is even scarier.”

Why, for example, six months after he made the “I voted for the bill before I voted against it” statement, is Kerry still unable to explain something so completely understandable and logical? A friend of mine gave a crisp explanation in 30 seconds. “I wanted to support the 87 billion dollar appropriation, but I wanted it to come out of the tax breaks we were giving to the rich, not from outside the budget. In the first resolution, such a proposal was included — I supported it. In the second case, they took out this provision, and so I voted against it”.

But no! Kerry’s explanation: “I was wrong in the way I spoke about the war. The president was wrong in the way he took us to war. Which is worse?” God alone knows what focus group hatched this gem. It occurred to me that a simple test could be applied by asking Kerry, “Would you vote for a similar resolution today authorizing the use of force against Iran? North Korea?” I suspect Bush too would be stymied by the same question.

Great leadership calls for talking truth to the people. When that happens, elections can become uplifting and didactic. Paul Craig Roberts wrote an eloquent piece in Counterpunch [1] why Kerry needs to speak the truth in the third debate (sadly, he expressed no such expectation of Bush). In an article some months ago, I recounted Gandhi’s sense of responsibility [2] demonstrated in taking full blame for something for which he bore no direct part.

In our time, the lies, misstatements, obfuscations, half-truths, evasions, diversions and the rest are now piled so high as to rival the fallen twin towers themselves. The truth lies buried beneath this wreckage. In the end, all we know is that there are two figures standing — a president who perhaps believes the nonsense he speaks, and speaks it fluently at any rate; and an opponent who is well-informed but has trouble simply stating the simple truth.

It is easy enough to blame Bush and blast Kerry, but is it not just as important to ask why the candidates feel they have to craft their image with such elaborate care, why there cannot be about them even the whiff of a mistake? And if the candidates really think so, does not the neurosis at the top reflect a more widespread malady? It would seem that the people would rather their leaders entertained them, rather than educated them on the realities. Far better to treat the election as gladiator sport and sneer at ‘politics’. Do we want to be told that a bomb, paid for with our tax dollars, crippled an Iraqi child who had nothing to do with Saddam Husain, Al Sadr, Al Qaeda, Zarqawi, or the Baathists? (In a different life, would John Edwards have not, even at this moment, been suing the perpetrators?) Or that the country has a debt that threatens its very sovereignty?

Why bother? Far more convenient to cheer brave talk of smarter wars, coalitions of the willing or billing (though perhaps not killing or drilling), flip-flops, and the like. That way, we are safely past the potential trauma of a national soul searching. Perhaps it was ever so. As Kipling wrote a long time ago, “If you can talk with crowds, and keep your virtue…”

All the same, voting rights in a superpower carry a terrible responsibility, and this is no ordinary election. In our own way, we are handing the next administration — and Congress — the power to determine whether innocent people in remote region of the world live or die [3]. To say we gave them this power to use wisely is to emulate John Kerry’s credulity in the matter of the Iraq War resolution.

Paul Craig Roberts is right. Kerry needs to find his voice. But far more importantly, America needs to find hers.

NIRANJAN RAMAKRISHNAN is a writer living on the West Coast. His writings can be found on http://www.indogram.com/gramsabha/articles. His blog is at http://njn-blogogram.blogspot.com. He can be reached at njn_2003@yahoo.com.

References

[1] “To Escape from Blunder, First Admit Reality“, Paul Craig Roberts, Counterpunch, Oct 11, 2004

[2] “Gandhi’s vision of Responsibility: The Great Trial of 1922“, NIRANJAN RAMAKRISHNAN, CounterPunch March 20, 2004

[3] “Civilians and Combatants“, NIRANJAN RAMAKRISHNAN, Swarajya, November 11, 2001

 

More articles by:

/>Niranjan Ramakrishnan is a writer living on the West Coast.  His book, “Reading Gandhi In the Twenty-First Century” was published last year by Palgrave.  He may be reached at njn_2003@yahoo.com.

December 17, 2018
Susan Abulhawa
Marc Lamont Hill’s Detractors are the True Anti-Semites
Jake Palmer
Viktor Orban, Trump and the Populist Battle Over Public Space
Martha Rosenberg
Big Pharma Fights Proposal to Keep It From Looting Medicare
David Rosen
December 17th: International Day to End Violence against Sex Workers
Binoy Kampmark
The Case that Dare Not Speak Its Name: the Conviction of Cardinal Pell
Dave Lindorff
Making Trump and Other Climate Criminals Pay
Bill Martin
Seeing Yellow
Julian Vigo
The World Google Controls and Surveillance Capitalism
ANIS SHIVANI
What is Neoliberalism?
James Haught
Evangelicals Vote, “Nones” Falter
Martin Billheimer
Late Year’s Hits for the Hanging Sock
Weekend Edition
December 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
A Tale of Two Cities
Peter Linebaugh
The Significance of The Common Wind
Bruce E. Levine
The Ketamine Chorus: NYT Trumpets New Anti-Suicide Drug
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fathers and Sons, Bushes and Bin Ladens
Kathy Deacon
Coffee, Social Stratification and the Retail Sector in a Small Maritime Village
Nick Pemberton
Praise For America’s Second Leading Intellectual
Robert Hunziker
The Yellow Vest Insurgency – What’s Next?
Patrick Cockburn
The Yemeni Dead: Six Times Higher Than Previously Reported
Nick Alexandrov
George H. W. Bush: Another Eulogy
Brian Cloughley
Principles and Morality Versus Cash and Profit? No Contest
Michael F. Duggan
Climate Change and the Limits of Reason
Victor Grossman
Sighs of Relief in Germany
Ron Jacobs
A Propagandist of Privatization
Robert Fantina
What Does Beto Have Against the Palestinians?
Richard Falk – Daniel Falcone
Sartre, Said, Chomsky and the Meaning of the Public Intellectual
Andrew Glikson
Crimes Against the Earth
Robert Fisk
The Parasitic Relationship Between Power and the American Media
Stephen Cooper
When Will Journalism Grapple With the Ethics of Interviewing Mentally Ill Arrestees?
Jill Richardson
A War on Science, Morals and Law
Ron Jacobs
A Propagandist of Privatization
Evaggelos Vallianatos
It’s Not Easy Being Greek
Nomi Prins 
The Inequality Gap on a Planet Growing More Extreme
John W. Whitehead
Know Your Rights or You Will Lose Them
David Swanson
The Abolition of War Requires New Thoughts, Words, and Actions
J.P. Linstroth
Primates Are Us
Bill Willers
The War Against Cash
Jonah Raskin
Doris Lessing: What’s There to Celebrate?
Ralph Nader
Are the New Congressional Progressives Real? Use These Yardsticks to Find Out
Binoy Kampmark
William Blum: Anti-Imperial Advocate
Medea Benjamin – Alice Slater
Green New Deal Advocates Should Address Militarism
John Feffer
Review: Season 2 of Trump Presidency
Rich Whitney
General Motors’ Factories Should Not Be Closed. They Should Be Turned Over to the Workers
Christopher Brauchli
Deported for Christmas
Kerri Kennedy
This Holiday Season, I’m Standing With Migrants
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail