OK, guys. I've had enough of this. I won't quote the particular author
since I've heard it coming from all sorts of people but since I seem to be
the only political scientist on the list, let me make my opinions known.
First. My father had dinner with Al Gore in New Orleans, the place where,
I believe, his son went into surgery after the traffic accident. He did,
indeed, seem genuinely concerned as any father would. Some of you forget
that he dropped out of the 1992 presidential campaign to spend more time
with his family.
Is he somehow not supposed to express that love? Or include his family in
his campaign? I'm sure you'll respond that he somehow shamelessly used
his son on television. Well, what should he have done? Lock them in a
closet? Plenty of politicians do that. At least he seems to have a
functional family.
I think to focus on the politicians is misguided. They have very
distinct public and private lives. They have to or they don't survive
long in either sphere. The place where you should turn your attention is
television. It doesn't allow for a humanizing interaction. I don't think
it's fair to criticize someone to bowing to the necessities of the medium
in which they must campaign to get elected. While his actions on tobacco
may be hypocritical, Al Gore didn't invent TV. Al Gore doesn't report
the news. Maybe if we gave him his own twenty inchs in the newspaper
everyday he wouldn't have to talk in chopped up, emotional sound bites. I
hear he's personally a likeable guy, and there are plenty of Democrats
(and admittedly more Republicans) I wouldn't say that about.
We seem as guilty here of that same sentimentality in criticizing his
personal motives. TV news doesn't communicate a person's real character.
Why should we expect it to? Believing so gives Hitler's propaganda and
manufactured gas-chamber sentimentality its true power.
You have to step back and support the people who support the best policies
and keep your arguments to what they propose (believe it or not, we're
much better at that now in this country than we used to be). If you want
to vote for JFK, don't let his fooling around on his wife get in the way.
Plenty of good politicians have had terrible private lives. What can you
say? God moves in mysterious ways.
Gore may well seem two-faced on tobacco, but let's face it. He came from
a Southern state. What are you going to do? Divide an absolute moral
line in the sand, not get elected and never do anything? Plenty of
politicians have turned on their old supporters and done the right thing.
Look at LBJ and civil rights. He's pretty much the reason the South is
Republican now. Does it surprise me that Gore managed to get along with
tobacco interests?
No. It surprises me the extent to which the Clinton administration has
move against one of the most terrible drugs around. No other president's
gone as far. And the personal political costs have been hugely high.
(EG, Gore getting criticized for his about face instead of all the others
who haven't yet changed their opinions). Don't think billion dollar
companies don't fight back behind the scenes like this.
Some of you will say, well he just figured where the wind was blowing and
changed his mind to suit public opinion.
So what?
Isn't that the way a democracy works? Isn't that why we don't have
elections every two days? Because we trust our representatives to guage
our opinions on their own and do what they think is right? Even if it
involves changing their minds?
Well, um, he's just being self-serving. All politicians are.
Great. The pizza delivery boy is being self-serving too. He's getting
paid to bring you your pizza. Wow. A politician doing something to serve
us. Is the fault in our stars, Horatio?
'News' isn't like a novel. You don't get to read everything that happens
right away. It can take years for the true history to come out.
What's worse is the attempt by citizens to assume because they get a big
image of someone in their living room that they know that person.
It's why I refuse to watch professional sports. I don't know any of
those guys. Why should I root for them? I'd rather read a well
construct narrative or watch some friends in a swim meet.
That's illusion on TV is the sentimentality that leads to the gas
chamber... not the decent folk, overwhelmed by the system trying to do
their best within it.
And I don't think it really stems from the technology itself. Writing can
be an awfully impresonal medium too. Remember all the statistics the Nazi
bureaucrats kept? It hung them at Nuremburg.
As Weber so aptly observed, politics and religion don't just mix, they
move in entirely separate spheres. Try not to confuse one with the other.
Sure I'm partial to Gore's policies and sure I don't like Dole, personally
or politically. But I had sympathy for the way the camera made him appear
stiff. A lot of qualified people will never win elective office because
of it. And because of a weak party system, a lot of people get elected
and find they can't do what they promised because they can't coordinate
their actions with anyone. Is it their fault for having human frailties?
What do you do when the electorate just keeps making it worse by piling on
term limits, spending limits, everything under the sun to attack
individual campaigns but nothing to address the systemic problems?
I've seen evil people beat good folks over the head in the press because
they could win with the votes so many times I just hold back whenever I
read something rotten about someone in the press. The quotes may all be
accurate, but that tells you nothing at all. Judgment is cast in our
society by a judge and jury for a good reason. We don't get to hear two
well balanced, conflicting interpretations of the evidence. We don't get
to see the witness cross examined. _That's_ what Percy was talking about
when he talked about inter-subjectivity. And that's why the current
thread in the debate distresses me. Not because people are attacking
Gore's politics. But because they're attacking his motive and character.
If you want to see what I mean about the press, watch _Absence of Malice_.
It's an eye opener. And it's mostly true. I know one of the journalists
peripherally involved. And I've personally lived through simalar
incidents where I did know the actors and I was shocked at how it turned
out in the paper. [When you see _Absense of Malice_, remember that it's
on a small screen and think hard about the different ways the tube can be
used. The thing itself is never inherently good or evil].
And I'll say something about Percy too. He was naive when it came to
politics. And he admitted it when I spoke with him. Why he took Roemer's
appointment to that education board I'll never understand. But he was
smart enough to quit a few months later. Who wants to deal with a bunch
of stupid Louisiana politicians who'll never fix what's wrong?
This isn't a criticism of the man. It just shows you he knew his limits.
Well, enough ranting. Though it may come across as a bit harsh, what I'm
really preaching here is more tolerance and civility. I think we'll all
agree that society could use more of it. Plenty of political issues don't
have clear cut moral lines and trying to give them one, is in my opinion,
a sin of self-indulgence and self-importance. Life is about messy
compromises.
Wade Riddick
Department of Government
University of Texas