Genuflecting to the Left
In my years of studying philosophy, the most salient piece of wisdom I have encountered comes from (of all people) Rene Descartes.
The Father of modern philosophy once opined: Common sense is what is most widespread and least used.
Joan Vennochi of the Boston Globe distinguishes herself in my eyes by her uncommon common sense.
In today’s Globe she comments upon the refusal of many of the Democratic presidential candidates to participate in a debate on Fox News Channel.
Edwards, the first to back out of the debate, is the only candidate
to give an official reason. His campaign said Fox programming tilts too
much to the right.
So now, he and the other presidential candidates aren’t just tilting to the left. They are genuflecting.
Assuming
a down-on-their-knees position may feel good for the moment. But in the
long run, it only gives the right wing fodder to use against the
Democrats’ quest to regain the White House.
And she concludes:
The presidential race is too long, and it is overrun by too many
photo ops and press releases. But from the people’s perspective, there
can’t be too many debates. The debate forum is where the candidate
finally steps away from the consultant, opens his or her mouth, and
speaks sense or gibberish. A friendly or hostile audience can tell the
difference.
Besides, where does this all lead? If Democrats say
no to Fox, does that mean Republicans will say no to CNN? Maybe they
can all agree to go on “American Idol.” Then again, when it comes to
bad boys, Idol judge Simon Cowell beats out Fox’s Bill O’Reilly.
However, in this age of relative religious illiteracy, Vennochi’s Catholic background may have led her to presume too much. She provides no definition of “genuflect.” Judging from random observations at Sunday Mass, even Catholics may need a refresher course. Was that left knee or right?
I do not understand why the Congressional Black Caucus is not furious about this, or at least far more vocally furious. Those Democrats who have backed out are clearly saying that it is better to decline an invitation from Fox than to accept one from the CBC; better to focus attention on Fox than on the CBC; better to make clear the feared power of Fox than to worry about the the further marginalization of the CBC; better so say that they the candidates know more about what they are doing by declining than what the CBC knew what it was doing when it agreed to co-sponsor.
Further reason for Blacks in the United States to form their own political party.
Common sense? I don’t think so. First, the notion that CNN is a liberal counterpart to Fox News is laughable. Maybe, maybe one could claim MSNBC attempts to play liberal–at least over the last six months or so–but even MSNBC cannot reach the patently, unapologetically slanted “news” peddled by Fox. Second, she seems to equate the netroots folks (MoveOn and the like) with “the Left,” and that, too, is laughable. I agree that the netroots’ tactics too often verge on bullying, and have said so on dotCommonweal. But when it comes to Fox News, Democratic candidates have more than enough reasons to demur, not the least of which is the Fox News All Stars’ performance at the GOP debate, which was, all in all, embarrassing.
Fr. Imbelli,
Were you thinking of the opening words of the Discourse on Method: “Good sense is the best distributed thing in the world; for eyeryone thinks himself so well endowed with it that even those who are hardest to please do not usually desire more of it than the possess.” ? This looks like irony, but he goes on to say that everyone is equally endowed with “good sense or reason” but we do not all put it equally to good use.
John Narcissus Edwards, of all people, could benefit from an exposure to diverse views.
The president of the news division of Fox was a former speechwriter for Richard Nixon who has been shown to provide his reporters with explicit instructions on how to report various items, always to the detriment of Democrats and the lionization of Republicans and George W. Bush in particular.
I don’t see why the Democratic Party or its candidates should go out of its way to shore up Fox’s credibility as a news organization. The debate is supposed to expose others to the views of the candidates, not vice versa. Where it all leads is for the candidates of the respective parties to decide. If “THE PEOPLE” are offended because candidates decline any debating opportunity no matter how likely it is to be structured to make them look bad, well, then, I guess the candidates will learn their lesson.
So IMHO rather than demonstrating it in spades, Joan Vennocchi appears to lack a good bit of common sense. This is politics and gamesmanship rules.
Here’s another point of view. Marc Cooper wrote this on his blog (http://marccooper.com/shadow-boxing/) after the Nevada Democratic Party cancelled the debate it had scheduled on Fox:
“What does count is that a couple of million mostly non-Democratic viewers watch Fox everyday and instead of being exposed to two hours of arguments by leading Democrats next August 14th, they can watch Sean Hannity some more.
“I mean, Democrats wouldn’t want to talk to THEM, would they?
“All this hullabaloo over Fox is one more confirmation to me that too many pwogessive Democrats are more comfortable massaging each other in their own bubble than doing the hard work of winning new recruits.
“Ah sure, I know the counter-argument. ‘You can’t trust those wingers at Fox,’ we were told. ‘They’ll load up the broadcast with disparaging commentators. And Roger Ailes joked that Obama was a terrorist.’
“Yada yada.
“I suppose if the Nevada Dems had stuck to their guns they would have been able to finely negotiate the on-air environment to be provided by Fox. And, what if they didn’t? I thought the Democratic candidates were running to be President of the United States. Shouldn’t someone who ought to be president be capable of presenting arguments strong enough to stand up against some yapping Foxista?
“I think so.
“So here’s the bottom line, the net effect of the debate getting scrubbed:
“Some millions of conservatives who would have been force-fed a prime-time chunk of Democratic campaigning will now be spared that exposure.
“And those who most benefit from this turn of events are the candidates with the most money and the greatest name recognition. If it were up to them, there would be no debates. In this case, the ill-named ‘net roots’ have only contributed to making the nomination process slightly less competitive.”
Later, when the CBC entered the picture, Cooper wrote (http://marccooper.com/white-roots/), “The Congressional Black Caucus has just agreed to stage two such debates with Fox over the course of the year….
“ ‘The CBC Institute is committed to presenting the presidential candidates to the broadest audience possible,’ Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the chairman of the institute, said in a statement.
“‘Collaborating with Fox News provides an opportunity to take this presidential election to millions of households.’
“Oh, what a rare thought. We’re in an election and we have a chance to speak to an audience of millions who ordinarily wouldn’t listen, so let’s take a shot.
“Wasn’t that easy?
“Not for KOS. His anaylsis is that the CBC is ‘stupid,’ its decision no less than ‘breathtaking in its stupidity.’”
Cooper later added, “I think simply that Bennie Thompson’s statement [says] it all. No Democratic constituency should be more wary of its treatment by FOX than the CBC, and if they can understand the upside in doing it, everyone should.”
Grant:
Fox is clearly in a category all its own and, for me, painful to watch. I believe I understand and agree with each of your comments…save one:
“Second, she seems to equate the netroots folks (MoveOn and the like) with “the Left,” and that, too, is laughable.”
Are you saying that MoveOn doesn’t anchor and aspire to speak for the Left in a manner analogous to, say, the Family Research Council’s aspiration to anchors and speak for the Right? That MoveOn is closer to the center? Too tame to be really “Left”? Or too radical? That there is no really influential “Left” in contemporary American politics? Please develop.
Thanks.
Sorry, Mike, I could have been clearer. I only meant that the netroots are not representative of “the Left,” a movement that is older and more ideologically diverse than the whipper snappers at DailyKos and elsewhere. As I said, I find much of what comes from the netroots bullying and unhelpful.