John McCain, Andy Rooney & Me
“I’ve always admired your tart honesty and ability to be personally offended by broad social trends.”
--Principal Seymour Skinner
There are a few conventions in politics I don’t particularly care for. This goes beyond complaints about the inanity of the electoral college. No, these are things that we seem to take for granted, and digest with the glee of baby birds being fed regurgitated worms.
What follows is a brief and spirited Andy Rooney-like rant of three or four loosely related ideas, and I try to pull a rabbit out of my cornhole in the final paragraphs to make the sucker congeal…so with that caveat, I’m gonna get my rant on:
1. “Left” for Democrats and “Right” for Republicans.
Now I realize some French history majors out there will point out that the “liberal left” origin was from capitalists sitting on the left and nobles sitting on the right of the king, and the “right” sought to maintain social order, while the “left” became associated with change. (In all fairness, though, if you defend this “left” v. “right” order, you’re siding with the French — which makes me want to choke on my Freedom Fries).
The Tartan, an online site I’d never heard of until three minutes ago, makes the argument that “In virtually every human language, the terms for left-handedness and the direction left have negative connotations.” It goes on to say our English “left” is derived from “lyft,” meaning “weak” or “broken.” In Latin, it’s close to “sinister;” German, “awkward,” and “clumsy” fit the bill.
“Right,” of course, is a synonym for “correct,” and right-handed people comprise about 90% of the population — it’s mainstream, accepted.
To be honest, I didn’t think about this until CNN emblazoned those distracting pundit meters that flanked the presidential candidates, force-feeding the public what Alex Castellanos and Gloria Borger thought were good arguments: these red/blue pie charts had the Dems on the right in blue, and the GOP on the left.
It’s a subtle, almost subconscious, built-in advantage that serves no purpose beyond journalistic shorthand…and burnishing the Frenchies.
2. “Swift Boating”
Somehow this phrase seems destined to describe absolutely anything and everything resembling an attack ad, the same way “-Gate” is the suffix for nearly every political scandal in the last thirty years.
When did we decide this?
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were a pack of degenerate liars. Is that really too hard to say? They converted a decorated war veteran to a more “fabulous” pansy than Richard Simmons. None of it was true, of course, but for some reason we’ve adopted the phrase “Swift Boat” for any character-based attack, regardless of its veracity.
“Swift Boat” is a convenient euphemism implying partisanship; if it’s a lie, call it that.
3. “Liberal media bias”
Stephen Colbert nailed my central premise here: “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
From local politics up to the national level, the GOP tries to intimidate media outlets through bullish charges of partisanship and bias. They do it often enough that it’s become an accepted part of the narrative.
Never mind Fox News, which actually got caught — though not surprisingly — using
talking points sent directly from the White House. Fox doesn’t count.
No, it’s a conspiracy of those left-lusting media anchors and writers who are to blame for McBush’s mumbled message. It may not be possible to prove a negative — that aliens don’t exist, or that Obama doesn’t pal around with terrorists — but that doesn’t prevent people from claiming the media is “covering up” connections (like any reporter or anchor wouldn’t LOVE to break that story), or they aren’t digging hard enough.
In debate, one of the first things you learn is an argument is a claim, followed by a
warrant.
It’s absurd to continue to take claims of bias at face value when they aren’t backed by any specific reasoning: that’s a toddler-ish rant, not a cogent argument.
4. Huh?
By now you may be saying, “what the hell was the point of this scattershot writing?”
Well-played.
I guess I needed something to complain about because it didn’t snow last night, as was expected. Everyone said it was going to happen, and the timing seemed about right.
That’s kind of the same thing that struck the McCain campaign. He’s a perfect fit for our traditional idea of who should inhabit the Oval Office, and the timing seemed about right. It was expected and projected, but not delivered.
When disappointment reigns, you want to complain about something, even if it doesn’t quite fit.
No snow? Hell, I’ll complain about politics!
No presidency? Hell, I’ll cry about media coverage!
The answer for both McCain and I, of course, is to get to work before the big deadline, and do something a little more productive and focused with our time. Nobody wants to listen to a confused messenger…but don’t worry, Mr. Rooney, I’ll still tune in to 60 Minutes tonight.
--Principal Seymour Skinner
There are a few conventions in politics I don’t particularly care for. This goes beyond complaints about the inanity of the electoral college. No, these are things that we seem to take for granted, and digest with the glee of baby birds being fed regurgitated worms.
What follows is a brief and spirited Andy Rooney-like rant of three or four loosely related ideas, and I try to pull a rabbit out of my cornhole in the final paragraphs to make the sucker congeal…so with that caveat, I’m gonna get my rant on:
1. “Left” for Democrats and “Right” for Republicans.
Now I realize some French history majors out there will point out that the “liberal left” origin was from capitalists sitting on the left and nobles sitting on the right of the king, and the “right” sought to maintain social order, while the “left” became associated with change. (In all fairness, though, if you defend this “left” v. “right” order, you’re siding with the French — which makes me want to choke on my Freedom Fries).
The Tartan, an online site I’d never heard of until three minutes ago, makes the argument that “In virtually every human language, the terms for left-handedness and the direction left have negative connotations.” It goes on to say our English “left” is derived from “lyft,” meaning “weak” or “broken.” In Latin, it’s close to “sinister;” German, “awkward,” and “clumsy” fit the bill.
“Right,” of course, is a synonym for “correct,” and right-handed people comprise about 90% of the population — it’s mainstream, accepted.
To be honest, I didn’t think about this until CNN emblazoned those distracting pundit meters that flanked the presidential candidates, force-feeding the public what Alex Castellanos and Gloria Borger thought were good arguments: these red/blue pie charts had the Dems on the right in blue, and the GOP on the left.
It’s a subtle, almost subconscious, built-in advantage that serves no purpose beyond journalistic shorthand…and burnishing the Frenchies.
2. “Swift Boating”
Somehow this phrase seems destined to describe absolutely anything and everything resembling an attack ad, the same way “-Gate” is the suffix for nearly every political scandal in the last thirty years.
When did we decide this?
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were a pack of degenerate liars. Is that really too hard to say? They converted a decorated war veteran to a more “fabulous” pansy than Richard Simmons. None of it was true, of course, but for some reason we’ve adopted the phrase “Swift Boat” for any character-based attack, regardless of its veracity.
“Swift Boat” is a convenient euphemism implying partisanship; if it’s a lie, call it that.
3. “Liberal media bias”
Stephen Colbert nailed my central premise here: “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
From local politics up to the national level, the GOP tries to intimidate media outlets through bullish charges of partisanship and bias. They do it often enough that it’s become an accepted part of the narrative.
Never mind Fox News, which actually got caught — though not surprisingly — using
talking points sent directly from the White House. Fox doesn’t count.
No, it’s a conspiracy of those left-lusting media anchors and writers who are to blame for McBush’s mumbled message. It may not be possible to prove a negative — that aliens don’t exist, or that Obama doesn’t pal around with terrorists — but that doesn’t prevent people from claiming the media is “covering up” connections (like any reporter or anchor wouldn’t LOVE to break that story), or they aren’t digging hard enough.
In debate, one of the first things you learn is an argument is a claim, followed by a
warrant.
It’s absurd to continue to take claims of bias at face value when they aren’t backed by any specific reasoning: that’s a toddler-ish rant, not a cogent argument.
4. Huh?
By now you may be saying, “what the hell was the point of this scattershot writing?”
Well-played.
I guess I needed something to complain about because it didn’t snow last night, as was expected. Everyone said it was going to happen, and the timing seemed about right.
That’s kind of the same thing that struck the McCain campaign. He’s a perfect fit for our traditional idea of who should inhabit the Oval Office, and the timing seemed about right. It was expected and projected, but not delivered.
When disappointment reigns, you want to complain about something, even if it doesn’t quite fit.
No snow? Hell, I’ll complain about politics!
No presidency? Hell, I’ll cry about media coverage!
The answer for both McCain and I, of course, is to get to work before the big deadline, and do something a little more productive and focused with our time. Nobody wants to listen to a confused messenger…but don’t worry, Mr. Rooney, I’ll still tune in to 60 Minutes tonight.
Advertisement
Leave a comment