House of Eratosthenes

The print and electronic media, in both hard news and editorial, have entirely failed us in this area. They’ve had all week long to address this thing the Speaker did. Let me boil down how they addressed it: The hard news resources give us the events and the sound bites. If you’re trying to figure out how to vote in 2008 based on events like this, and you rely on hard news, you must rely on the sound bites from the White House and from the Democrats in Congress. That’s an example of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse if ever there was one. Both sides spin — and rest assured on this, if either side manages to sound more compelling than the other, it’s probably the least honorable side that prevails. So what we call “hard news” sucks, as a tool to address the problem at hand.

Editorials aren’t much better. Speaker Pelosi may have committed a felony here; conservative editorials will play that up, liberal ones will play that down. Occasionally, someone will step back and take a broader view that may be useful to us across a longer timeframe, like Fred Barnes when he wrote for the Weekly Standard:

Something gets into political leaders when they take over Congress. It makes them think they can run Washington and the government from Capitol Hill. So they overreach, but it never works. Republicans tried it in 1995 and were slapped down by President Clinton in the fight over the budget and a government shutdown. Now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is operating as if she rules much more than just the House of Representatives. This includes having her own foreign policy — a sure recipe for trouble.

Thus is Pelosi’s misstep explained according to her human failings, rather than simply by the corrupting influence of politics.

But such contributions are few and far between, and if the Barnes editorial gets any visibility, the citadel that is the print editorial “industry” will mobilize to get it slimed. Editorials don’t exist, after all, to show us our leaders are human; they exist to show us our leaders are corrupt if they have the letter “R” after their names, or had the best of intentions if they have the letter “D” after their names. And certainly, they aren’t supposed to depict the emperor’s nakedness when said emperor is the first emperess to hold the House gavel.

And even Barnes’ comments fail to address the underlying question: Just how far do we have to position our Democrats from official diplomatic offices, before they’ll stop flying around making promises to foreign heads-of-state that we don’t want them to make? Seems to me, that’s what the American electorate needs to know.

And it falls to the blogging community to answer that. I’ll tell you why. To answer that question, you have to have a certain level of healthy cynicism. There is such a thing, you know. Humans are cynical creatures. It’s a survival instinct. You take your family to a nice restaurant, part with more money than you expected, and get lousy service and lousy food. You give the place a second shot the next month, part with the same amount of money, get lousy service and lousy food. You give the place a third chance the next month, with the same results…you won’t be going back a fourth time. Ever. That’s cynicism. It’s a healthy thing.

And the fact of the matter is — as unprofessional as bloggers can be, and as helpful as “real” editorials can be sometimes — editorials aren’t supposed to be cynical. Good cynicism, bad cynicism, it’s all the same. The first rough draft passes from the pen of the author, and passes under the eyeball of the very first editor, the first casualty after the stuff Microsoft Word underlines as spelling and grammar mistakes, is cynicism. All kinds.

This is a problem. We live in an age where we need our cynicism to help us with our thinking.

And my cynicism tells me things. Things that are unprovable, but still things that are undisputed…or if they are disputed, they ought not be.

Let’s parse what what Speaker Pelosi herself had to say about the administration’s objections:

“Our message was President Bush’s message,” Pelosi told the Associated Press from Portugal. “The funny thing is, I think we may have even had a more powerful impact with our message because of the attention that was called to our trip. It became clear to President Assad that even though we have our differences in the United States, there is no division between the president and the Congress and the Democrats on the message we wanted him to receive.”

Speaker Pelosi’s position is based on two lies. First of all, to believe the things she has had to say about her trip, you have to believe that her office and the White House are in agreement about things. On the other hand, to believe the things the White House has had to say, you have to believe that the House Speaker and the President disagree. Well, guess what: They don’t agree. So to believe Speaker Pelosi, you have to accept that she’s in lock-step with President Bush about everything that needs to be told to Syria, even as those two fail to agree on everything from bacon-or-eggs to tastes-great-less-filling to black-or-cream-sugar.

Second lie: Her talking points are carefully calculated to shore up a constituency that is hopelessly divided. She says “our message was President Bush’s message,” and what she’s doing — you won’t read this in any editorial, but it’s the truth — is addressing two constituencies instead of one. Her job is to keep on doing this throughout Election Day ’08. Moderates who long for an end to partisan disputes and are ready to vote for anyone showing signs of bringing that end, hear these words and interpret them the way they want. Oh, Speaker Pelosi has respect for the President’s authority. She’s discharging that authority in a way President Bush himself cannot…perhaps because she’s more articulate. The results are sure to be positive. Why, think what would happen if we put someone from her party in the President’s chair…and come to think of it, it’s been awhile since they had the chance. Maybe we should give it to them again. After all, the policies won’t change much, but the execution will be better. Perhaps that’s what we need. Hmmm.

And then the MoveOnDotOrgsters, who want anything but an end to partisan divide — they hear the same words and think something else. Pelosi, they think, is pointing out Bush’s incompetence. Go Nan! Because, after all, according to the KOSsacks and MoveOn.Orgsters, there is no point to anyone making a public comment about anything, other than to make Bush look bad. Think about it. When’s the last time you heard a liberal Democrat say something in public that had any other purpose? Been a while, huh?

Pelosi’s comments united these two camps. At least tangentially. Now, you get representatives from these two groups, moderates and extreme leftists, in a room together and — look out. The likely result is flying furniture. But Pelosi has managed to deliver words that each side of the split, will pick out and interpret in the way they want.

Of course, when the words are sufficiently vague to bring about that false emulsification, they become meaningless. “Our message was President Bush’s message.” That really means nothing. But who cares?

Meanwhile, in a sane world, the value of Pelosi’s trip would be measured according to the yardstick of Jimmy Carter’s trip to North Korea thirteen years ago, and the disaster that followed. The House Speaker’s authority to negotiate with foreign governments, is pretty much the same as the authority of a failed former President. Or a football, or expired carton of milk. I do hope the eventual results are better. There is no reason for me to think so.

Time to drag out the dialog between McClane and Ellis from the first Die Hard movie. I wish it didn’t mesh with real events quite so often…

Ellis: It’s not what I want, it’s what I can give you. Look, let’s be straight, okay? It’s obvious you’re not some dumb thug up here to snatch a few purses, am I right?

Hans: You’re very perceptive.

Ellis: Hey, I read the papers, I watch 60 minutes, I say to myself, these guys are professionals, they’re motivated, they’re happening. They want something. Now, personally, I don’t care about your politics. Maybe you’re pissed at the Camel Jockeys, maybe it’s the Hebes, Northern Ireland, that’s none of my business. I figure, You’re here to negotiate, am I right?

Hans: You’re amazing. You figured this all out already?

Ellis: Hey, business is business. You use a gun, I use a fountain pen, what’s the difference? To put it in my terms, you’re here on a hostile takeover and you grab us for some greenmail but you didn’t expect a poison pill was gonna be running around the building. Hans, baby… I’m your white knight.

Hans: I must have missed 60 Minutes. What are you saying?

Ellis: The guy upstairs who’s fucking things up? I can give him to you.
:
:
Hans [on radio to McClane]: I have someone who wants to talk to you. A very special friend who was at the party with you tonight.

Ellis: Hello, John boy?

McClane: Ellis?

Ellis: John, they’re giving me a few minutes to try and talk some sense into you. I know you think you’re doing your job, and I can appreciate that, but you’re just dragging this thing out. None of us gets out of here until these people can negotiate with the LA police, and they’re just not gonna start doing that until you stop messing up the works.

McClane: Ellis, what have you told them?

Ellis: I told them we’re old friends and you were my guest at the party.

McClane: Ellis… you shouldn’t be doing this…

Ellis: Tell me about it.

Ellis: All right… John, listen to me… They want you to tell them where the detonators are. They know people are listening. They want the detonators of they’re going to kill me.

Ellis: John, didn’t you hear me?

McClane: Yeah, I hear you, you fucking moron!

Ellis: John, I think you could get with the program a little. The police are here now. It’s their problem. Tell these guys where the detonators are so no one else gets hurt. Hey, I’m putting my life on the line for you buddy…

McClane: Don’t you think I know that! Put Hans on! Hans, listen to me, that shithead doesn’t know what kind of scum you are, but I do –

Hans: Good. Then you’ll give us what we want and save your friend’s life. You’re not part of this equation. It’s time to realize that.

Ellis: What am I, a method actor? Hans, babe, put away the gun. This is

McClane: That asshole’s not my friend! I barely know him! I hate his fucking guts — Ellis, for Christ’s sake, tell him you don’t mean shit to me –

Ellis: John, how can you say that, after all these years–? John? John?

[Hans shoots Ellis]

Hans: Hear that? Talk to me, where are my detonators. Where are they or shall I shoot another one?

Fortunately, the gunshot was figurative and unlike the hapless Ellis, Speaker Pelosi is okay. But her strategy is just as kooky as his, and I’m afraid every bit as ill-fated.

Update 4-10-07: Welcome Pajamas Media readers.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Why We Have BlogsSaturday, April 7th, 2007

Why We Have Blogs
Saturday, April 7th, 2007