Who's Your Uncle?
Another spring, another political scandal. I don't know enough about Ehud Olmert to pass judgment on his leadership in Israel, although I admire anyone who makes a reasonable go of the job.
I do find the NY Times story on Olmert's possible regisnation to be very interesting. Halfway down the page, author Isabel Kershner refers to one of the participants in a legal deposition as "avuncular" and "unassuming." In so saying, Kershner runs, colors flying, across the hard line between fact and opinion. In the breakdown of literary boundaries that has accompanied the information age, journalists might feel the need to 'paint a picture' for readers at least as compelling as that offered by novelists or memoirists. Nonetheless, it was not the best choice of words.
Speaking of journalism, Fareed Zakaria once more asserted the self that made me so fond of him in this fantastic piece about terrorism, where he debunked the meme that has taken hold in the popular press that terrorism shows no sign of fading. (In fact, I said this just yesterday.)
Zakaria titled his piece "The Only Thing We Have to Fear" a phrase so entrenched in our cultural consciousness that it's now a cliche. The sentence reminded me of another adage, dusted off and presented to me in my first year of journalism school. We must "speak truth to power" suggested the earnest journalistic manifesto I signed my freshman year. At the time I thought that phrase belonged to journalists, although in fact it started with the Quakers.
Zakaria, more than most journalists I've read, makes a living off "speaking truth to power." He picks a wide-ranging power as his audience. Sometimes it's corporate America, sometimes the Bush administration, more often it's the universe of editors and advertisers who direct American publishing.
"Speak Truth to Power" sums up the presidential race. The thing is this: I'm reading Obama's "Dreams from my Father" right now, and I've started to realize. This man might not be presidential material. Not because he'd be a bad commander-in-chief, but because Obama has his roots on the South Side. He used to pick do-nothing teens off the streets past Ninety-Fifth (yikes, say I, being from the Windy City). He knew where it was at.
Obama is a man in his element when he's "speaking truth to power." He's not so hot at being the power himself. He might do okay, but in terms of best allocation, he'd be better off as a rogue U.N. inspector, a Mohamed ElBaradei character, a thorn in the feathers of doves and hawks alike. To a degree, the same can be said of John McCain. McCain is on the wagon at last, but I wish he were off. Sometimes it seems he's lost himself in the make-believe land of Bushisms, paying no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Hillary, well, now there was a candidate. Forget about speaking truth to power. Hill was at her best with her arm across the windpipe of the opposition. Her forte was a fuerte unmatched in the present field. But due to the way the political winds have huffed and puffed, it seems this outcome (where Hillary becomes President and Obama and McCain take turns heckling her from the floor) is the only one we shall not have. Too bad, really.
1 comment:
The fact remains, however, that whoever is elected is going to be busier with cleaning up the messes of the Bush Administration than with anything else. The problem with Hillary Clinton is that, regardless of her legendary toughness, the political baggage she has accumulated (not to mention such unsavory details as her connections to Walmart) may have left her with so many I.O.U.'s that she ultimately would have been less effective on clean-up duty.
As for John McCain, the sad fact is that the man doesn't know what he's talking about. He's repeatedly conflated Iraq, Iran and Al Qaeda, and has openly admitted that "the issue of economics is not something [he's] understood as well as [he] should." His (prior) status as an independent agent seems to be the smaller issue.
All I'm asking for at this point is competence.
Post a Comment