Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Catching up, a little

Catching up, a little

Last updated on: May 6, 2009 at 6:26 pm by Fred Clark

Catching up, a little 2009-05-06T18:26:04-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The flu came to town last week and the paper has been frantically on the story ever since.

At any journalism outfit, stories like this will highlight the tension between those trying to figure out what readers need and those trying to figure out what readers want (as in what it is that makes readers want to buy a paper). During a flu outbreak, this tension manifests itself as a tug-of-war between the Don't Panic and the Panic! factions.

The best example of what I mean by the Panic! faction would be the local TV news in most American markets. And most especially the teasers and promos for that local TV news, which become the frame that shapes and directs and characterizes all of the reporting forced to fit into that frame. These teasers are shown throughout the night in between local-market commercials, and also throughout the news broadcast, in between the stories themselves. "Something threatens the lives of your children, tonight at 11."

This sensationalistic approach has been thoroughly mocked, criticized and argued against elsewhere (well, it hasn't quite been thoroughly mocked — there's always room for more mockery …) and we needn't rehash all of that debate here. I simply want to question one of the assumptions of the way this debate is framed.

The assumption is that the Panic! faction is more interested in selling newspapers than the Don't Panic faction is. I don't believe that. Actually, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the success of the best-selling book of all time could be attributed, in part, to the words "Don't Panic" appearing in large, reassuring letters on the cover. I may be wrong, but I think most readers would rather be informed than be alarmed. Offering to keep them informed strikes me as a sustainable business model. Offering to keep them alarmed, not so much.

Anyway, while I was busy at work reminding readers to wash their hands, I neglected this space and thus skipped past several other news items from the past week. Let's catch up on a couple of those.

* * * * * * * * *

Who invited Arlen?

I appreciate the cloture arithmetic that makes 60 senators caucusing with the Democrats some kind of magic bullet, er, magic number. (And I won't even complain about the nonsense of that — about the ridiculousness of a bunch of lazy scoundrels who think a real filibuster is just too much work, so instead they all agree to replace it with a bit of procedural nonsense to create a dubious, extra-constitutional three-fifths majority requirement for all Senate votes.)

But this is Arlen Specter, we're talking about here. I've voted against this man three times and I'm proud to have done so.

I kept that "Joe Hoeffel for Senate" sticker on my car for years as a badge of honor. In 1992, I went door-to-door for Lynn Yeakel. In 1998, I convincingly feigned excitement over the campaign of Bob Lloyd. (What? Oh, sorry — Bill Lloyd. Whoever. He was running against Specter, that was all that mattered.)

I was very much looking forward to voting against Arlen Specter for a fourth time in 2010. It's quite disturbing to learn that my own party doesn't want me to do that — that they think voting for Specter might be the best and only chance of stopping the electoral juggernaut of Pat Toomey's toomescent campaign.

Because here's what really bothers me: If it came down to a choice between Arlen Specter, the embodiment of unprincipled, poll-driven politics, and Pat Toomey, rabid lunatic wingnut — endorsed by both the Club for Hobbesian Anarchy and Ladies Against Women, then I'm going to vote for Specter. So are most Pennsylvanians. And that would mean that Specter wins — not just the election, but the ongoing argument over what politics is or ought to be about.

Specter is what he is — a human windsock. With few, if any, actual convictions, opinions or principles of his own, the man is in some ways more responsive to his constituents than most politicians. He's kind of like the third accountant in the old joke:

Ken Lewis is interviewing three candidates to be Bank of America's chief accountant. "What's two plus two?" he asks the first candidate.

"Four," the guy says. He doesn't get the job.

"What's two plus two?" Lewis asks the second candidate. Knowing that saying "four" won't get him hired, the guy says, "Five." He doesn't get the job either.

"What's two plus two?" Lewis asks the third candidate.

"What do you want it to be?"

"You're hired. Welcome to Bank of America."

But that same flexibility and variability means that such responsiveness can't be relied on, and that it doesn't bring a lot of force to bear in support of those constituents. He'll say whatever polls indicate most voters want him to say and he'll vote however most voters want him to vote — but only if or to the extent that doing so isn't likely to cost him politically. Every tepid stance he takes seems conditional, provisional, temporary.

That hasn't won Specter much in terms of admiration or respect — I've never heard anyone here in Pennsylvania speak fondly of our senior senator — but it seems to have been a successful approach to ensuring his lifetime job security in public office. That's a depressingly impressive achievement for a man who achieved prominence by reassuring the public that Ira Einhorn was not a flight risk.

* * * * * * * * *

Former quarterback, congressman and HUD Secretary Jack Kemp died this week.

I liked Jack Kemp. I didn't like his policies — his devout, one-size-fits-all prescription of supply-side tax cuts was misbegotten, demonstrably false and disastrous wherever implemented.

But I admired the man himself because he spoke and stood against the xenophobic and racist factions in his own party and because he never accepted that appealing to middle-class voters meant pretending that the poor did not exist. Jack Kemp talked about ending poverty during a time when many Democrats, heeding the strategy of "triangulation," were cautiously avoiding any mention of the P-word. Kemp genuinely found poverty intolerable and he wanted to Do Something about it. For that, he earned my respect.

The Something Kemp ultimately wanted to Do, unfortunately, was to implement a trickle-down program of massive tax-cuts for the wealthiest paid for by correspondingly massive cuts in the social safety net and the common welfare — a strategy that would have resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of Americans living in poverty and in the hardships such poverty would entail. So while I admire Kemp's sincere dedication to aiding the poor, I'm also grateful he never had the opportunity to administer the toxic prescription he had in mind for them.

In a hypothetical campaign pitting Kemp against Specter, then, I suppose Kemp would have won my admiration and Specter would have won my vote. Democracy isn't always pretty.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 4, 2009

What do you see?

Next Post

May 7, 2009 Empathy

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How many years did it take Solomon to build his palace?

Select your answer to see how you score.

15 years 13 years 7 years 10 years