This past week has seen the theological chaos and genuine debacles on the part of both the The Episcopal Church USA and the Presbyterian Church - USA, as both rather readily and startingly have begun to cave in to social activist mentality and varying strains of political-correctness at expense of doctrine and Scripture.
Though it is true that those more closely acquainted to the recent trends of both of these churches will not be surprised, the matter goes beyond internal schism. Indeed, the theological shipwreck of the Episcopal and PC-USA churches in America gives a stern warning and somewhat jarring stop sign to the ecumenical optimism of the 70's right through the 90's among Christian denominations and churches. The lesson is that a body is going to hold specific stances and beliefs, they necessarily must subscribe to a degree of exclusivity, and yes, even selectiveness. If they fail to do so, if they try to be all-inclusive of all viewpoints and paradigms of life, then they will end up with no clear meaning at all. The center will not hold. An ecumenical spirit and hope should not lead to misplaced trust or knaive ignoring of malignant momentums or incompatible outlooks.
This lesson has application in foreign and cultural relations as well. It is not possible to be all things to all people, or to include or ascribe to all views an equal value. Nor is it wise or sensible to even try to do so. What is happening to the once large and influential Episocopal and Presbyterian-USA bodies is a metaphor for some of the nation's dilemma as a whole. Especially as it applies to the ill-conceived concept of `multiculturalism' for its own sake which of late has taken on the form more of a specific rejection of Western cultural legacy or even the idea of a normative standard. The laudable attempt to understand and take some cognizance of other cultures and lifestyles has become instead a fear to take a clear principled stand on some matters, and to dare name some things and practices as not in the best interest or moral. The important goal of avoiding compulsion of others has been allowed to undermine the equally important task of setting a standard, of naming a benchmark that represents `doing better' and the latter of course requires judgment of some choices as far less constructive than others. In a relativistic world as the present has become, such as Pope Benedict XVI so strongly pointed out in a recent statement, the willingness to criticize or name some actions as harmful has been erased.
The doctrinal chaos and direction choices, and impending schisms, in the Episcopal Church and PC-USA thus find their relevance to other denominations, faiths, and even the secular citizens of America, as a red-flag of warning for the overall direction of a value-free, relativist social paradigm and its likely fruits. Unwilling or lacking the conviction to set limits and make some value judgements, such a culture cannot easily find a consensus or voice to even set policy. Without policy and constraints, social and cultural disarray and selfishly motivated anarchy follows in due time.
These are just some initial thoughts in the wake of this disturbing hard turn toward a more value-free stance on the part of the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian-USA. I will discuss them more at a future time. Ironically, it bolsters the caution and slow pace currently extant where the ongoing attempts at re-union by the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are concerned. The forces that pulled them apart did not come into being in even a century's time, but over multiple centuries. Though bridging this gap again will ideally not take so long; the schism can not be quickly resolved without grave risk of distorting principled positions on both sides.
I guess one might say that the present lesson is that the desire for unity is best exercised in the practice of mutual respect and attempt to accurately learn the position of the other. NOT in the "watering down" or `shortchanging' one's position and the value of their cultural legacy, or ignoring real points of dispute. This definition of ecumenical spirit does justice to both the chasms that divide us, and the instinctive yearning to bridge them. And goes for social, relgious, and international divides alike.
Writing this, I realize that the topic was covered earlier by me in some respects on 1 March 2006. Intriguingly, the topic of the error of trying to square Christianity with Egalitarianism forecast the result of the Episcopal General Convention this June in many respects, as they chose the path of making doctrine bend to the present. It can be found here:
Faith's convictions and Egalitarianism don't meet easily
- Anthony
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Congressional Democrats make impressive move
Friday June 16, 2006 saw a heartening step away from blatant and obvious corruption seen all too commonly these days with members of Congress and Executive branch. They voted to take away Congressmen William Jefferson's seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee in the wake of deep implication in a rather embarrassing bribery scandal and FBI discovery of $90,000 stashed in his freezer.
Jefferson, one of the Democrat representatives of Louisiana, has served eight terms and used his powerful influence to apparently serve his own interest during the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans. Rescue forces were diverted to his home to evacuate objects among which seems to have been this freezer cache of money. Those actions causing some raised eyebrows and ridicule at the time, the FBI raid and bribery scandal since have gone far to answer some of the questions raised by his antics during the Hurricane's aftermath. The details of the case are still being sorted out, and Jefferson has not yet been charged with a crime pending further investigation of the money's origins, etc. The impression of self-serving corruption, however, is impossible to avoid, and has in fact, been routinely concluded by members on both sides of the aisle. It is this which makes Friday's vote significant.
For what is even more encouraging, is it came at the hands of the much maligned Democrat minority. It was Jefferson's own Democrat leaders and colleagues that strongly pushed for Jefferson to lose his seat on the House and Ways. This effort was spearheaded by their House party leader, Nancy Pelosi who rightly concluded that regardless of the official status of FBI charges at the moment, the abuse of office and position is abundantly clear. Pelosi has of late been saying, as part of an attack on a perceived "culture of corruption" about the Majority Republican leadership, that the Democrats will reaffirm standards of accountability in ethics among their representatives. The result has been rather interesting.
An Associated Press announcement notes:
"House Democratic leaders pushed for his [William Jefferson's] Ways and Means Committee assignment to be taken away. Nancy Pelosi, the party's House leader, has said repeatedly that Democrats will be held to the highest possible ethical standards, while she and others in her party accuse Republicans of nurturing a "culture of corruption."
"Mr. Jefferson has legal issues that he and his family must deal with. Mrs. Pelosi has political issues that she and her caucus must deal with," said Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, chairman of the Democratic caucus.
His remarks reflected the political forces at work - an attempt by Pelosi, D-Calif., to make ethics a campaign issue in a Democratic bid to win control of the House this fall."
More at: House pulls lawmaker from powerful committee
The last quoted comment on the part of Associated Press suggests that the action was a form of political `pandering' to contrast with the Republicans and in part, it most likely is just that. Yet still, that position misses the basic point. The fact is that a precedent of renewed accountability has been set, and with it, a public expectation for it to continue.
Whether one believes the motive sincere or cynical, the House Democrats have now set a provocative standard and challenge to raise the level of ethics on Capitol Hill. To `walk the talk' as it were, of which, very little has been seen to date. The whole point is that Jefferson is being removed on ethical grounds, not legal ones, and that is important for any attempt to start raising the bar. Too often precise legal loopholes or carefully worded statements or outright obstructionism have been used to shield close to self-evident mischief. With the recent resignation of Speaker of the House Tom Delay, and now the removal of William Jefferson from the Committee on ethical grounds alone, a change of sort seems afoot. Certainly a change in the `rules' that will likely guide political campaign tones this fall.
Naturally some people and organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus have said that Jefferson was entitled to a Constitutional presumption of innocence. This is correct for a legal matter, but not for an appearance of `above reproach' that a powerful Committee position requires, or should. A presumption of innocence is not mandated in matters of ethical behavior where perhaps the letter of the law has been followed, but the use and prestige of an office is not. It only makes sense in a time when Congress, and particularly the out-of-power party, are bringing strong pressure on the Executive branch to respond more ethically and transparently, that Nancy Pelosi turn around and demand that of her colleagues. Nor has the CBC indicated otherwise either, making no opposition in the vote or calling for a roll-call other than stating a concern for the uprecedented nature of Pelosi's action.
The actions of both parties to date have hardly been to a high standard and the absurd and wide-ranging scandal around the convicted Republican Lobbyist Jack Abramoff comes immediately to mind, as well as others. But this year has seen a marked "stiffening" in Congressional standards and response to both internal matters and particularly in opposition to the White House's use of power. Two recent examples being the opposition in defiance of veto-threat to President Bush's Dubai `ports deal' and his own party's pressuring the resignation of Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay from his position. It is interesting to wonder if something of a counter-reaction is now setting in. Legislatures go through cycles of corruption and reform, and one can hope that one is beginning now. For House Republicans stand in solidarity with the decision, and with the Democrats, have turned around and are demanding the return of Jefferson's documents, and hard drives seized from his Washington D.C. congressional office. Thus, having rebuked and chastised one of their own, Congress has then in turn closed ranks and is confronting the ever-growing expansion of executive power and tendency of the administration to roughshod precedents and even legal barriers.
One can hope that such a phase is now coming into being, and whichever party comes out strong in the November mid-term elections, one hopes that this `turning back' toward accountability trend continues. For it is significant that this also extends to the charges leveled:
"Congressional leaders in both parties have made it clear they do not want to interfere with the investigation into allegations against the Louisiana lawmaker, even though they have sided with him in this legal dispute".
As for William Jefferson, the Democrat's taking the initiative to take away his Committee seat has, IMO, somewhat cleared Capitol Hill of his coming shipwreck. Missteps and abuse of position will always occur -- its enough that they be held immediately accountable at least informally where the legal rigid parameters of the law perhaps fall short. This helps defuse the perception of blatant nepotism, favoritism, cronyism and avoidance of responsibility that can otherwise grow.
After all, these are times where transparency and higher ethics are in need more than ever. For as "Both the political punishment and the legal case appeared to be without precedent. Jefferson has not been charged with a crime, and officials said last month's FBI search of his congressional office was a first." With such turmoil afoot, the time is ripe to make an effort to do much better and to not leave open doors for malfeasance. If this gesture jump-starts this process, it is a good thing itself.
Well done, House Democrats!
- Anthony
Jefferson, one of the Democrat representatives of Louisiana, has served eight terms and used his powerful influence to apparently serve his own interest during the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans. Rescue forces were diverted to his home to evacuate objects among which seems to have been this freezer cache of money. Those actions causing some raised eyebrows and ridicule at the time, the FBI raid and bribery scandal since have gone far to answer some of the questions raised by his antics during the Hurricane's aftermath. The details of the case are still being sorted out, and Jefferson has not yet been charged with a crime pending further investigation of the money's origins, etc. The impression of self-serving corruption, however, is impossible to avoid, and has in fact, been routinely concluded by members on both sides of the aisle. It is this which makes Friday's vote significant.
For what is even more encouraging, is it came at the hands of the much maligned Democrat minority. It was Jefferson's own Democrat leaders and colleagues that strongly pushed for Jefferson to lose his seat on the House and Ways. This effort was spearheaded by their House party leader, Nancy Pelosi who rightly concluded that regardless of the official status of FBI charges at the moment, the abuse of office and position is abundantly clear. Pelosi has of late been saying, as part of an attack on a perceived "culture of corruption" about the Majority Republican leadership, that the Democrats will reaffirm standards of accountability in ethics among their representatives. The result has been rather interesting.
An Associated Press announcement notes:
"House Democratic leaders pushed for his [William Jefferson's] Ways and Means Committee assignment to be taken away. Nancy Pelosi, the party's House leader, has said repeatedly that Democrats will be held to the highest possible ethical standards, while she and others in her party accuse Republicans of nurturing a "culture of corruption."
"Mr. Jefferson has legal issues that he and his family must deal with. Mrs. Pelosi has political issues that she and her caucus must deal with," said Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, chairman of the Democratic caucus.
His remarks reflected the political forces at work - an attempt by Pelosi, D-Calif., to make ethics a campaign issue in a Democratic bid to win control of the House this fall."
More at: House pulls lawmaker from powerful committee
The last quoted comment on the part of Associated Press suggests that the action was a form of political `pandering' to contrast with the Republicans and in part, it most likely is just that. Yet still, that position misses the basic point. The fact is that a precedent of renewed accountability has been set, and with it, a public expectation for it to continue.
Whether one believes the motive sincere or cynical, the House Democrats have now set a provocative standard and challenge to raise the level of ethics on Capitol Hill. To `walk the talk' as it were, of which, very little has been seen to date. The whole point is that Jefferson is being removed on ethical grounds, not legal ones, and that is important for any attempt to start raising the bar. Too often precise legal loopholes or carefully worded statements or outright obstructionism have been used to shield close to self-evident mischief. With the recent resignation of Speaker of the House Tom Delay, and now the removal of William Jefferson from the Committee on ethical grounds alone, a change of sort seems afoot. Certainly a change in the `rules' that will likely guide political campaign tones this fall.
Naturally some people and organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus have said that Jefferson was entitled to a Constitutional presumption of innocence. This is correct for a legal matter, but not for an appearance of `above reproach' that a powerful Committee position requires, or should. A presumption of innocence is not mandated in matters of ethical behavior where perhaps the letter of the law has been followed, but the use and prestige of an office is not. It only makes sense in a time when Congress, and particularly the out-of-power party, are bringing strong pressure on the Executive branch to respond more ethically and transparently, that Nancy Pelosi turn around and demand that of her colleagues. Nor has the CBC indicated otherwise either, making no opposition in the vote or calling for a roll-call other than stating a concern for the uprecedented nature of Pelosi's action.
The actions of both parties to date have hardly been to a high standard and the absurd and wide-ranging scandal around the convicted Republican Lobbyist Jack Abramoff comes immediately to mind, as well as others. But this year has seen a marked "stiffening" in Congressional standards and response to both internal matters and particularly in opposition to the White House's use of power. Two recent examples being the opposition in defiance of veto-threat to President Bush's Dubai `ports deal' and his own party's pressuring the resignation of Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay from his position. It is interesting to wonder if something of a counter-reaction is now setting in. Legislatures go through cycles of corruption and reform, and one can hope that one is beginning now. For House Republicans stand in solidarity with the decision, and with the Democrats, have turned around and are demanding the return of Jefferson's documents, and hard drives seized from his Washington D.C. congressional office. Thus, having rebuked and chastised one of their own, Congress has then in turn closed ranks and is confronting the ever-growing expansion of executive power and tendency of the administration to roughshod precedents and even legal barriers.
One can hope that such a phase is now coming into being, and whichever party comes out strong in the November mid-term elections, one hopes that this `turning back' toward accountability trend continues. For it is significant that this also extends to the charges leveled:
"Congressional leaders in both parties have made it clear they do not want to interfere with the investigation into allegations against the Louisiana lawmaker, even though they have sided with him in this legal dispute".
As for William Jefferson, the Democrat's taking the initiative to take away his Committee seat has, IMO, somewhat cleared Capitol Hill of his coming shipwreck. Missteps and abuse of position will always occur -- its enough that they be held immediately accountable at least informally where the legal rigid parameters of the law perhaps fall short. This helps defuse the perception of blatant nepotism, favoritism, cronyism and avoidance of responsibility that can otherwise grow.
After all, these are times where transparency and higher ethics are in need more than ever. For as "Both the political punishment and the legal case appeared to be without precedent. Jefferson has not been charged with a crime, and officials said last month's FBI search of his congressional office was a first." With such turmoil afoot, the time is ripe to make an effort to do much better and to not leave open doors for malfeasance. If this gesture jump-starts this process, it is a good thing itself.
Well done, House Democrats!
- Anthony
Saturday, June 10, 2006
An Unnatural War - Curious Ambivalence follows a success
The announcement of the successful discovery and killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi this past Tuesday was a major success and achievement in the difficult fight to quell the terrorist-insurgency in Iraq. By an interesting coincidence, it roughly coincided with an anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy in WW II. One couldn't help but reflect on the contrast in both official and press descriptions of a war effort and victory. There is little comparison between the two conflicts, to be sure, but one could at least hope there would be comparable putting the campaigns and victories in context.
The death of Zarqawi and nearly ten of his staff or adherants, is not just `one win' on an interminable road. Its a success with potential that under a decisive and coherent political atmosphere, may carry the seeds of a turning point in the war. It ranks second only to getting Osama Bin Laden in its potential value and disruptive effect against the Islamo-terrorist enemy. Unfortunately we do not have such a coherent atmosphere, or any sign of understanding of the fact that wars involve alot of killing and violence, and the mere fact of that is not to be handled in a way that numbs public confidence. No war is winnable the way both the administration and the coverage are presenting. President Bush initally said the victory with Zarqawi "helps a lot" but at the same time stressed that it won't check the insurgency. Even if true, this is a very soft-pedal, even emasculating way, to treat a major victory. War is as much pyschological as it is about arms and armaments, and the government seems unable to realize they keep sending a detached and plodding message of policy inertia, rather than a steady MacArthur-like stepladder to victory as in "Operation Cartwheel" or even the precision plans and goals under Colin Powell's direction in Gulf War I. And then of course we have the media, relentlessly reporting on minutiae that would be truly staggering in a major war like Korea, let alone the World Wars. Its not really a case of them being "biased" or "spinning"; IMO, rather, the problem is the shell-shock and numbing effect it has on public perception, and to no real point. Casualties cannot be avoided in a war.
For example, I notice today, that MSCNBC reports that "A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol exploded in an outdoor market in Baghdad on Saturday, killing four people and wounding 27, police said" and that further "Gunmen in two cars also shot to death a Shiite metal worker and wounded two others in their shop in western Baghdad, police Capt. Jamil Hussein said". In addition "A mortar landed on a house elsewhere in the capital, seriously wounding a 50-year-old woman and a 2-year-old girl, Lt. Maitham Abdul Razzaq said." Finally there is mention of a gunfight between Iraqi soldiers and "gunmen" (presumably enemy terrorists) that killed two people, and that other "gunmen" in killed three Shi'ites in a drive-by shooting at a bus station.
What is so striking about this is the truly small scale of the violence, considering that this is a "war" and not a riot or gang uprising, with which such death figures more nearly find parallel. Yet it succeeds in giving an `overshadow' feeling, if not eclipsing, the major success with Zarqawi's elimination. An elimination that itself is now already being second-guessed with talk about whether maximum effort to save his life was made by the Iraqi police and U.S. troops arriving on the scene. And remember, we are talking about someone who we had just targeted with two 500 pound bombs ---- as if that action was not itself a blatant attempt to kill him.
Its truly baffling, and the analogy above actually holds part of the answer. The problem is that the war in Iraq, if not the War against Terrorism itself, is treated with a style and micro-attention that is more appropriate to major civil unrest in nations or even political clashes that result in riots. But not a full-blown war. Nor is this only on the "press" side. The government too, speaks about gains and losses in the war with a curious lack of coherency and sought for goals.
And so it is no surprise at all to read this morning on AOL: "Poll Finds Backing for Troops Survey Also Underscores Doubts on War"
Noteworthy is the first quote: "The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that many Americans perceive the alleged atrocities against Iraqi civilians by U.S. forces as isolated incidents while saying the U.S.-led invasion was a mistake, an unusual disconnect that sets this conflict apart from Vietnam."
Actually, this is not surprising at all. The only surprise is that it surprises. For the American people are actually more insightful than the journalist pool that insists on equating this war with Viet Nam; because its the only one many of the latter seem to have studied or are personally in touch with. Rather this poll shows almost exactly where the true fault line lies: the American people know that Islamist-terrorism "started this war" on 9/11/01, indeed earlier, and most get that Iraq was supposed to help in some way. So of course we support the troops -- unlike Viet Nam, its understood that the enemy is determined to bring the fight here, as the recent plan to attack Canada's govermment at its doorstep demonstrates. But the presentation and policy defense of the war has been so abysmal and indeed incoherent in both words and rebuttals, that it is the policy that is starting to dull trust and raise doubts. A fact utterly abetted by the style of reportage, which generally goes uncountered or even put in context.
Right-wing pundits complain that the public shows a certain ennui and flagging support. Left-wing pundits complain about a seeming indifference to overstepping of certain boundries, as in possible deliberate shootings in Haditha, or torture and abuse of detained prisoners. What both are missing is that the political dialogue and partisan rancor, and above all, the surreal reporting of the war by all involved, makes public enthusiasm both difficult, and exhausting. What the partisans don't realize, whether on CBS or FOX, is that American people thought we were fighting a war --- not putting down a riot or discussing a civil rights imbroglio and domestic issue. Yet that is how the Iraq war is continually framed -- with casualties reported in a hyper-detailed fashion more akin to murders in New York, and with the govt response much like a police one -- with no pretense that the `crimes' will ever end, or that there is a "strategy". There is a similar concern with the disposition and motives of the "accused", the enemy, that again undermines any sense of the there "is us" and there is "the enemy" that is essential to maintaining public morale and faith in a conflict.
Formulating and presenting a consistent message of goals and strategy, and speaking about each gain clearly when they are made, is an essential, as is not overplaying setbacks of an attrition nature. Contrary to possible expectation, this is not the press's job, but the government's. They leave the press little choice but to chase the next sensationalist road-side bomb or event. For when clear statements of candor are not provided, goals other than ethereal ones set and stated, and both Right and Left seem to show as much concern for how their actions are perceived as they do for victory, the public can't be blamed for a swelling impatience, and yes, Doubt.
- Anthony
The death of Zarqawi and nearly ten of his staff or adherants, is not just `one win' on an interminable road. Its a success with potential that under a decisive and coherent political atmosphere, may carry the seeds of a turning point in the war. It ranks second only to getting Osama Bin Laden in its potential value and disruptive effect against the Islamo-terrorist enemy. Unfortunately we do not have such a coherent atmosphere, or any sign of understanding of the fact that wars involve alot of killing and violence, and the mere fact of that is not to be handled in a way that numbs public confidence. No war is winnable the way both the administration and the coverage are presenting. President Bush initally said the victory with Zarqawi "helps a lot" but at the same time stressed that it won't check the insurgency. Even if true, this is a very soft-pedal, even emasculating way, to treat a major victory. War is as much pyschological as it is about arms and armaments, and the government seems unable to realize they keep sending a detached and plodding message of policy inertia, rather than a steady MacArthur-like stepladder to victory as in "Operation Cartwheel" or even the precision plans and goals under Colin Powell's direction in Gulf War I. And then of course we have the media, relentlessly reporting on minutiae that would be truly staggering in a major war like Korea, let alone the World Wars. Its not really a case of them being "biased" or "spinning"; IMO, rather, the problem is the shell-shock and numbing effect it has on public perception, and to no real point. Casualties cannot be avoided in a war.
For example, I notice today, that MSCNBC reports that "A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol exploded in an outdoor market in Baghdad on Saturday, killing four people and wounding 27, police said" and that further "Gunmen in two cars also shot to death a Shiite metal worker and wounded two others in their shop in western Baghdad, police Capt. Jamil Hussein said". In addition "A mortar landed on a house elsewhere in the capital, seriously wounding a 50-year-old woman and a 2-year-old girl, Lt. Maitham Abdul Razzaq said." Finally there is mention of a gunfight between Iraqi soldiers and "gunmen" (presumably enemy terrorists) that killed two people, and that other "gunmen" in killed three Shi'ites in a drive-by shooting at a bus station.
What is so striking about this is the truly small scale of the violence, considering that this is a "war" and not a riot or gang uprising, with which such death figures more nearly find parallel. Yet it succeeds in giving an `overshadow' feeling, if not eclipsing, the major success with Zarqawi's elimination. An elimination that itself is now already being second-guessed with talk about whether maximum effort to save his life was made by the Iraqi police and U.S. troops arriving on the scene. And remember, we are talking about someone who we had just targeted with two 500 pound bombs ---- as if that action was not itself a blatant attempt to kill him.
Its truly baffling, and the analogy above actually holds part of the answer. The problem is that the war in Iraq, if not the War against Terrorism itself, is treated with a style and micro-attention that is more appropriate to major civil unrest in nations or even political clashes that result in riots. But not a full-blown war. Nor is this only on the "press" side. The government too, speaks about gains and losses in the war with a curious lack of coherency and sought for goals.
And so it is no surprise at all to read this morning on AOL: "Poll Finds Backing for Troops Survey Also Underscores Doubts on War"
Noteworthy is the first quote: "The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that many Americans perceive the alleged atrocities against Iraqi civilians by U.S. forces as isolated incidents while saying the U.S.-led invasion was a mistake, an unusual disconnect that sets this conflict apart from Vietnam."
Actually, this is not surprising at all. The only surprise is that it surprises. For the American people are actually more insightful than the journalist pool that insists on equating this war with Viet Nam; because its the only one many of the latter seem to have studied or are personally in touch with. Rather this poll shows almost exactly where the true fault line lies: the American people know that Islamist-terrorism "started this war" on 9/11/01, indeed earlier, and most get that Iraq was supposed to help in some way. So of course we support the troops -- unlike Viet Nam, its understood that the enemy is determined to bring the fight here, as the recent plan to attack Canada's govermment at its doorstep demonstrates. But the presentation and policy defense of the war has been so abysmal and indeed incoherent in both words and rebuttals, that it is the policy that is starting to dull trust and raise doubts. A fact utterly abetted by the style of reportage, which generally goes uncountered or even put in context.
Right-wing pundits complain that the public shows a certain ennui and flagging support. Left-wing pundits complain about a seeming indifference to overstepping of certain boundries, as in possible deliberate shootings in Haditha, or torture and abuse of detained prisoners. What both are missing is that the political dialogue and partisan rancor, and above all, the surreal reporting of the war by all involved, makes public enthusiasm both difficult, and exhausting. What the partisans don't realize, whether on CBS or FOX, is that American people thought we were fighting a war --- not putting down a riot or discussing a civil rights imbroglio and domestic issue. Yet that is how the Iraq war is continually framed -- with casualties reported in a hyper-detailed fashion more akin to murders in New York, and with the govt response much like a police one -- with no pretense that the `crimes' will ever end, or that there is a "strategy". There is a similar concern with the disposition and motives of the "accused", the enemy, that again undermines any sense of the there "is us" and there is "the enemy" that is essential to maintaining public morale and faith in a conflict.
Formulating and presenting a consistent message of goals and strategy, and speaking about each gain clearly when they are made, is an essential, as is not overplaying setbacks of an attrition nature. Contrary to possible expectation, this is not the press's job, but the government's. They leave the press little choice but to chase the next sensationalist road-side bomb or event. For when clear statements of candor are not provided, goals other than ethereal ones set and stated, and both Right and Left seem to show as much concern for how their actions are perceived as they do for victory, the public can't be blamed for a swelling impatience, and yes, Doubt.
- Anthony
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
