One of the trademarks of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has been his commitment to a new style of politics. Last year, in answering a question about negative campaigning and ad hominem attacks on opponents, he said: “My preference going forward is that we have to be careful not to slip into playing the game as it is customarily played.” Obviously Obama’s… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (16)Page 1 of 1 pagesI tend to agree with Mr. Brociner. The ad hominem attacks have become the natural way to do things. There is no way to assign which side “started it” but both the right and left have become ugly. As left as I am, there used to be a time that I would be willing to listen to the rights’ point of view. I can’t even take a few minutes anymore. Maybe the rise of right wing talk radio has been the instigation for the equal response from the left, but more than likely it’s simply the dumbing down of America. Our TV culture needs conflict for “entertaining drama” and name calling is conflict.
Not that this stuff wasn’t going on even back in the days of our earliest elections, but TV needs it to gain viewers and thus to gain advertisers. I’m so amazed to see any of the cable news channels bring on their guests for one or two minute debates, and think the audience is gaining some sort of insight. But of course they don’t think that, they want us to get riled up enough to sit through the four or five minutes of commercials until the next useless mini-debate. True debate has been replaced by show debate.
But what is the answer? Force everyone to learn proper debate? Maybe, it’s time for hosts to be trained in formal debate and required to conduct it properly. Maybe it’s time for guests to be penalized with silence if they break formal debate rules. Nah, it will never happen, just a personal fantasy. And of course formal debate wouldn’t address columnists and talk radio/TV that don’t do anything but spout opinion ad hominem ad nauseum.
There is a possible solution. Bring back the fairness doctrine they used to have for TV/radio.
Posted by Jon B on Jun 24, 2008 at 2:02 PM Yo Ken -
You withdrew from our excellent discussion on a previous thread, to our mutual detriment, but I am intrigued by some of your comments here.
I note that democratic political entities that encourage discussion and dissent tend to have fierce internal conflicts before they go out and stomp whomever and whatever needs to be stomped. Israel is the leading practitioner of this dynamic, with the United States as a distant but capable second. This process, often thought of as inefficient, is actually a key component of successful democracies throughout the world. I therefore think the current fierce discussions within your “Progressive” ranks and in the overall electoral process are entirely beneficial and healthful for our democracy. The distillation of personalities and policies in the electoral process will result in a high-proof democratic result.
This is in marked contrast to the non-democracies, where the winner of internal debates eliminates his opponents, and then proceeds to eliminate the populace: Stalin, Mao, the Kims, Pol Pot, Saddam, and Mugabe are prime examples.
... I am often downright embarrassed by how one-dimensional and superficial our “analysis” of the world is. We progressives like to think of ourselves as “truth tellers” committed to depicting the world as it really is. Yet we too often present a cartoonish version of reality, rather than an accurate account of what is happening and – more to the point – why it is happening.
I accept this as a true statement of your beliefs and objectives; that makes you a very lonely individual. But this discussion is about Senator Obama.
On the one hand, Obama seeks to unify. On the other hand, as you say, Progressives need “to closely monitor ... potential pitfalls”, such as compromises by Obama. And on the left foot, Obama is the far-most Leftist since George McGovern.
I do not see how these positions can be reconciled. Do you expect everyone, Left and Right, to unite and rally around Obama? Can Obama achieve unity without some compromised middle position between his followers’ far-Left natural inclinations and everyone else? Do you think everyone will roll over for Obama, and if they did what would that do to the fierce debate we need to validate our democracy?
Posted by scorp on Jun 25, 2008 at 6:12 AM As a radical progressive I got a good laugh from Ken Brociner’s essay. Ken, you haven’t presented anything that progressives can learn from Obama. Obama says “we have to be careful not to slip into playing the game as it is customarily played,” and then he goes to AIPAC and plays the game completely customarily and his flip-flop cave-in on Telecom Imunity is completely customary politics, just to name two examples.
Ken, in case you didn’t notice, Petraeus did betray the USA, and Sirota is right that Obama is keeping hush on important issues. Ken, Obama is the best choice among what the two party machines have to offer, but after observing Obama’s first two weeks as the nominee and his rush to the center, only uncritical admirers of Barack Obama can still believe he has a genuine desire to transcend old political habits.
As you can see I’m not at all enamored by Barack Obama’s candidacy. His speech at AIPAC the day after achieving the nomination was an abomination and supreme display of pandering at its worst. Self-styled progressives like Ken Brociner leave me wondering if there is a political label that Democratic centrists won’t try to usurp?
Brociner discusses issues of political campaigning style and does not provide any examples of the “alternative philosophical outlook” that Obama is supposed to have developed. So it appears that this alternative philosophical outlook only extends to trying to be a “nice guy” campaigner.
The underlying difference is whether we are talking policies and principles or merely vague political rhetoric.?
The problem that progressives have with Obama is not as Broiner alleges that we don’t trust his motivations, it is that we don’t trust his politics. So far he appears to be nothing more than a better window dressing on the Democratic Party. Brociner wants us to believe that every political “enemy” be they vanilla liberal Democrat or rabid neo-con really sincerely believes “they are working to make the world a better place.” So? Perhaps Brociner’s view is the problem. What are we to make of people who believe they are working to make the world a better place but who are doing so in a manner that makes it worse? Okay, assuming George Bush and Dick Cheney really wanted to make the world a better place by lying to the public and illegally invading and occupying Iraq, how does that “new philosophy” help us?
Assuming that Barack Obama really wants to make the world a better place when he goes to AIPAC and kisses their shoes regurgitating their false talking points right back to them, while Israel contiues its illegal and inhumane appartheid occupation and blocade of Palestine, how does that express a new “philosophical outlook” in political policy or principles?
It is not progressives who have a one-dimensional analysis, it is Brociner who is presenting a cartoonish version of reality by erasing the facts from the picture.
Obama is the one who is adding to the dishonest tone to the election when he supports an assault on the Constitution and calls it a good deal for the people. The fundamental dishonesty to the Democratic Party is that Obama is conceding that he has no argument against the Republicans on national security. He can’t say Telecom Immunity has NOTHING to do with national security. And on top of that, Obama’s basic message is even though George Bush has the power now, don’t worry when Obama is president he will exercise it responsibility. That is not a new philosophy of government; that is the oldest political scam in the world. What Obama needs to learn from progressives is to quit the political con game and keep it real.
Posted by Gregory Wonderwheel on Jun 25, 2008 at 6:21 PM You can’t have a critical mass for change if you don’t have a mass of criticism about what needs to be changed.
Posted by Gregory Wonderwheel on Jun 25, 2008 at 6:27 PM Gregory Wonderwheel : ‘... Self-styled progressives like Ken Brociner leave me wondering if there is a political label that Democratic centrists won’t try to usurp? ....’
“Left” and “leftist”.
The reason Obama, the Clintons, McCain and so forth can be polite with each other is that they are all basically on the same page. If leftists want to complain about what is wrong with their world view and politics, they have to use words like “war”, “imperialism”, “repression”, “class” and so forth—not at all nice. But the only thing the Left has is its truth. We certainly don’t have power. If we give up truth we have nothing.
Posted by anarcissie on Jun 25, 2008 at 7:22 PM Ken, “well-intentioned” is a relative term, isn’t it? Mixed motives are the rule in human affairs. Even George Bush probably believes that he did all that he did with good intentions. That doesn’t excuse what he’s done.
In my opinion, it also doesn’t mean that in order not to demonize him, we are forced to accept his account of his own motives . He might be deluding himself, or he might be trying to deceive us, or some of both. Either way, we don’t have to be his accomplices. And that’s just what we’d be—accomplices—if we didn’t point out the lies Bush told to rationalize his actions, and the powerful incentives that he and Cheney and many of those around him have had to falsify reality.
It’s true that Barack Obama can probably get elected ONLY if he doesn’t come across as a dangerous black man. And beyond getting elected, he is probably doing the country a service by trying to get people to question their old assumptions. It’s up to people on the left to go further. We will have to push Obama to take truly progressive positions if and when he’s elected.
We’ll also have to push the voter who are turned on by Obama to think about why. If it’s not just a personality cult, if it is really about politics, then it involves taking and using power to achieve a just society. And that means opposing the power of those who are perpetuating an unjust society—whether they “delight in bringing misery and oppression” or they just don’t care who they trample if it adds to their own profits and power. I’m all for reasoned discourse, but when someone is hell-bent on pursuing a policy that’s hurting people, I’m going to denounce them and denounce their motives. If that be demonization, make the most of it.
Posted by dfischman on Jun 25, 2008 at 11:16 PM Greg -
I have six E-mails that you have posted messages this afternoon, but only two actual posts are now on this website. I am most interested in your third post and this in particular:
“Progressive” is one of those fun words that is inherently neutral of content but has an implied meaning that we can argue over. I mean progressive means being in favor of progress, right? But progress toward what? That is the real question.
So to some people the industrial revolution was progress and progressive. We can progress toward the cliff and our doom, or we can progress toward a better day for all. Or we can progress toward a two teired socitey of the rich and the poor as we seem to be doing now.
I fight for the word progressive to mean “someone who is for progress
toward the betterment of the human condition for the largest number of
humans possible.”In the current political context, Progressive is hardly “neutral of content”. Progressivism in the early Twentieth Century was concerned with progress as you have outlined, but it soon took on foreign elements including racism and euthanasia. The social and economic ferment of the Great Depression led to much agitation, and there were radical political movements about, including Socialists and Communists.
Socialists and Communists gained very little traction during this time, because Socialism was a foreign ideology at odds with the egalitarian ideals of the United States and bad reports were coming from the Soviet Union on Communism and its programs and pogroms.
Not being able to gain political power as Communists or as Socialists, radicals hijacked the Progressive label and Henry Wallace, businessman, politician, mystic, and Communist, ran for president in 1948 on the Progressive Party ticket. That did not work either.
So the radicals, illiberal to the core, began calling themselves “Liberals”. So far, that hasn’t worked either. The farther Left a candidate is, the worse he does in national elections regardless of how he labels himself.
Now I note that some of them, including Hillary, are again calling themselves Progressives, either because they are ignorant of their own history or they think everyone else is ignorant of their history. They can’t very well go back to calling themselves Communists or Socialists, but they are running out of names with which to fool the people.
So, the Dims are desperate to find the right combination to win this election, but overt Leftism historically has not done the trick. This year they had three attractive candidates who were closely matched for leftist qualifications, but two of them had gimmicks: Hillary had estrogen and Obama had melanin. Edwards, for all his attractions, did not distinguish himself above what Gore or Kerry had to offer, so he had to go. Obama got the edge for articulate charisma, plus Hillary was carrying too much baggage.
After the experience with JFK, one might think that charisma would disqualify someone for the presidency, but for Leftists, politics is not a rational process.
So now we have Obama, shallow, callow, inexperienced, articulate, and indoctrinated. This is going to be marvelous great fun to watch.
Posted by scorp on Jun 26, 2008 at 12:58 AM Jon B.(the very first person to comment) has raised a number of important questions.
Some of the other comments that have been posted do as well, but , on the whole, I find their tone and overly simplistic and dogmatic approach to be more than a little off-putting.
Dfischman makes several good points - but I think he misunderstands what my basic position is. I urge him to read some of my other columns which are posted on the margin to the right of this column.
Let me say that I completely agree with esentially everything he says in his second and third paragraphs. However, in reference to his final par., I would suggest that while we should, of course, vigorously denounce (as I said in the piece) any and all policies, ideologies, values and priorities that we are opposed to, we shouldn’t be in the habit of accusing our adversaries of having consciously sinister motives.
For three reasons: 1) Most don’t have such motives. 2) When we do so, we come across as mean-spirited. 3) Isn’t it enought to loudly and thoroughly denounce everything else I listed above?
Posted by kenbrociner on Jun 26, 2008 at 7:54 PM Ken,
Sure, it’s probably true that most of those we disagree with don’t have sinister motives. They’ve come to there ideology from different angles, shaped by so many factors…for instance family upbringing. But, and it’s a big but…there are certainly a portion of people that DO have sinister motivations and it can be difficult to sort the chaff from the wheat. The biggest factor for sinister motivations usually comes down to self interest particularly when it comes to money. Follow the money is that common rule.
And of course self interest is written all over politics these days. Any candidate is seeking a job. How much does a candidate want the job? They know going in that they will be subjected to criticism, their backgrounds subjected to intense scrutiny by the opposition and that anything they say has the possibility of being taken out of context or subjected to the “liars test” because they had the audacity to change a position from earlier or even when misspeaking getting ridiculed (particularly if it was caught on video).
That a candidate is willing to be publicly raked over the coals, one has to wonder whether it is because of self interest, sinister motivations as to some hidden agenda (conspiracy theorist love this angle) or a genuine interest in making a difference.
To alter the subject a bit. I’m rather tired of the staged political appearance. The so-called town meetings where the questions are pre-screened ( a recent McCain trick) or the people in the background are pre-selected in order for a pleasing camera shot (a recent Obama gaffe) or changing the appearance of the location ( the mother-of-all-stupid-stagings when Bush was in a manufacturing plant in Ohio and his handlers changed the backdrop of boxes to say “made in America” when they hadn’t been) or simply that attendees are screened for allegiance before being allowed into the venue .
These staged appearances have become the norm which naturally puts me in the mind of wondering about sinister motives. If the candidate machines alter reality with viewers (TV coverage) and attendees, why should I trust these candidates? The political season (which goes on far too long) has become the practice of deception. Once a candidate has survived the primary, then it’s “move to the middle” which begs the question, was the candidate true in the primary or is the candidate true in the general election? Both parties do this.
And this year is no different. Obama and McCain courted specific groups in the primary, now they are courting “the middle” whatever that is, hell, they don’t even know for sure. But they think they know because both sides rely on endless polling, which becomes a drag on what they truly believe as neither wants to alienate a possible block of voters they might be able to court however small that block may be because small margins might count on election day.
I consider our election process a sham. I really don’t blame the candidates because they have to play the game as it stands. The whole process opens up questions of sinister motivations. But here’s the chicken or the egg thing, is the process what gives us the type of candidates we get or do the type of candidates that run enable the process? After all the winner goes on to their job and doesn’t change the process, except maybe around the edges. It’s the process that makes me cynical.
Posted by Jon B on Jun 28, 2008 at 1:20 PM Ken again,
I suppose your original post was essentially about taking the high road or not stooping to insulting language to make ones point as a candidate.
But here’s the tough part. How does one respond to the supporters of a candidate? Most candidates do try to stay away from the vitriol, it’s the machine that supports them that does the skewering.
Consider scorp. His last post was filled with ad hominems. Dems are dims. Obama is “shallow, callow, inexperienced, articulate, and indoctrinated.” And we know what the reference to “articulate” means. As well as he references that the left “fools people.” This is normal discourse for scorp.
In as much as I’m not an Obama cheerleader, but he’s all I’ve got, it offends me because it’s nothing but baiting that scorp practices. But those of us that read scorp are suppose to bite our lip and take the high road?
The thing is, he thrives on this. It’s why he comes here (I’ve always assumed scorps a male, I suppose I don’t think a woman is likely to be so insulting…some sort of stereotype I’ve got).
Further, I’ve so often wondered why In These Times continues to let him post with all the insults he delivers. Maybe you could enlighten me on that. I’ve assumed it’s that freedom of speech thing, although as a business ITT has no obligation to offer free speech.
Posted by Jon B on Jun 28, 2008 at 2:02 PM Jon B -
I am shocked - shocked! - that you find me insulting and that you are insulted.
I was not insulted when Blondemike (aka Michael P. Hardesty) wanted me to send him my address so he could beat me up. I was not insulted when he wanted to shoot me with his genuine .357 mag. I was not insulted when Maria wished me dead, but Maria had the good grace to edit the comment out. All right here on ITT.
Far from being insulted, I was amused and bemused by the irrational and violent tone of the anti-war (anti-violence?) Leftists. Leftists can talk and threaten all they want, but the American people uniformly reject them at crunch time. If the Left ever does win the presidency, then I will be insulted. Fortunately, Obama is self-destructing faster than George McGovern ever did. What is it about Leftists that make the VP selection process so complicated?
And we know what the reference to “articulate” means.
Ummm, no. You have the advantage of me, sir. What does “articulate” mean to you?
Posted by scorp on Jun 29, 2008 at 2:10 AM Dear Ken Brociner:
Your lesson from the Obama campaign is that we should act as if everybody is acting in good faith, and assume that politicians genuinely believe the things they are saying. I respectfully disagree.
For example: why are we invading and occupying Iraq? The mainstream media and nearly all Senators and Congressional Reps said: because of Iraq’s nuclear weapons, and because Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. These two purported reasons have been exposed as lies. But the war continues, and now the reason is “for democracy”!
Another example: Does Barack Obama believe in public financing of political campaigns? Until a week ago, his answer was YES, but now, his answer is NO. Did he genuinely believe his position? (If so, which one?). Obviously, Obama had built up such an awesome fundraising machine that he had more to gain from refusing Federal funding. Obama can out-fund-raise the Republican McCain, which is unusual for a Democrat. And it ought to raise disturbing questions about the Obama campaign.
The LAST THING we should assume is that the Congressional Reps and Senators genuinely believe the positions that they are taking. The public reason often differs from the real reason.
Posted by Nevada_Ned on Jun 30, 2008 at 2:25 PM Ken, you wrote that “we shouldn’t be in the habit of accusing our adversaries of having consciously sinister motives.”
Who could disagree with that? But it’s a tendentious argument. “Consciously” sinister? Who knows whether people who profit from other people’s oppression are aware of their own motives? Our entire culture tells them it’s fine to take advantage of other people to make a buck (“free enterprise”) or to dominate other nations to impose your own vision (“leader of the free world”). It takes study and effort to think critically about these political cliches even when they’re hurting you. When they are serving you, why would you become conscious of how sinister they are in their effects?
What I hear a lot of people who define themselves as progressive saying is that regardless of what politicians say or indeed believe, the reasons they act the way they do have to do with the structure of power in this country. I happen to think that argument is correct. So please, don’t tell people like me that we are “in the habit” of making arguments that we have good reasons for believing. When you do that, you trivialize the person you’re speaking to—and I thought that sort of disrespect was exactly what you were opposing?
Posted by dfischman on Jul 1, 2008 at 10:17 AM What we need to learn from Obama is not to be tricked and dragged into his campaign which lacks any progressive, or even liberal, substance.
When will Obama spell out the specifics of what he means by “Unite for Change”?
What kind of “change” is Obama seeking? So far, he hasn’t said; chances are he won’t say because he has so many people mesmerized with his illusionary and delussionary vision of “hope.”
Alan L. Maki
Warroad, Minnesota
Posted by alanmaki on Jul 1, 2008 at 2:41 PM Martha Biondi and James Thindwa have responded to Ken Brociner in a column titled “Earth to Ken Brociner” which went up on InTheseTimes.com today.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3783/earth_to_ken_brociner/
Check it out.
Posted by Joel Bleifuss on Jul 1, 2008 at 5:33 PM scorp,
You want me to sympathize with you as to Blondemike? You two were attacking each other pretty good. Just because he wanted to take it to another level doesn’t justify your role. All your ad hominem attacks and insults are supposedly erased because Blondemike got madder than you?
I thought a conservative value is to be accountable for ones own actions, words and deeds? But apparently your accountability is to point the finger to the other person, “they did it worse.” Simple schoolyard tit-for-tat.
Then, I apparently don’t understand how Obama gets your ad hominems because of others. Your transference of blame is somehow justified into attacking others who haven’t attacked you? Is that what you do? How do you justify ad hominems on someone who has never said anything about you? That would get the label of “you started it first.” Now, I don’t suspect Obama is ever going to respond to you…and I suspect you don’t either, which is why you feel it’s OK.
Again, where’s the conservative values? Two wrongs make a right? Keep other houses in order before your own? Perhaps the golden rule is made to be broken? Are you re-writing conservative values?
But I’m not really interested in your rebuttal. I suspect more justification. I would very much be surprised if somehow you experienced an enlightenment as to your own actions, words, and deeds. I mean, have you ever considered an apology for your verbal attacks? Did you ever consider that you played a part? But if you do indeed honestly become enlightened, I may begin to see you differently.
Posted by Jon B on Jul 1, 2008 at 7:17 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Ken Brociner
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2008 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
