My father-in-law, a Roosevelt Democrat, turns 90 this year. We were down in Scituate yesterday, and he unloaded back copies of magazines on me, as he always does. Some good, like Smithsonian. But also Time and Newsweek, which he supplements by reading the Boston Globe. I haven't asked which TV station he gets news and commentary from, but I can pretty much guarantee it's not Fox.
He tells me his opinions. He's an educated, intelligent man, and he says things very thoughtfully. He very thoughtfully tells me the opinions he has formed after paying careful attention to the events of the day. These are his own judgments, not anything some journalist has predigested for him and packaged in a way to get him to agree with the standard liberal journalist narrative.
By sheer coincidence, his opinions, even his original ones, line up exactly with the prevailing beliefs of his sources. What are the odds, eh? He liked the earlier George Bush, who he thought was a decent man, but thinks the son was rather common, and not very smart. (He forgets that I was his also his son-in-law in '88 and '92, when he didn't think Bush 41 was decent.) Clinton had flaws, of course, but he can't understand why people expect their leaders to be perfect in everything. Which is not what he said in '98. And for the record, I don't expect leaders to be perfect in everything, not even sex, campaign promises, or favoritism. I draw the line at lying to grand juries, though. That Palin woman, McCain made a big mistake, because she was obviously just a gimmick, and doesn't seem very smart. And why is everyone expecting Obama to just get everything done without any trouble? That Biden has more of the common touch, which is why what he says gets him in trouble.
Let me stop rolling my eyes for a moment and get serious here. This is the world the media was used to, where people believed they were thinking for themselves because journalists left a few of the dots unconnected. Half the country does not want to entertain that notion, unwilling to even consider the possibility that their thoughts are only partly their own. They have a great deal invested in not seeing the obvious, because it would be painful. TV hosts. Academics. Writers. Movie-makers. And just regular folks in town who want to seem like they know something about the world when talking with their friends and neighbors. How can such admit to themselves that they have been influenced without noticing?
The escape from liberalism is not only a series of intellectual propositions. It involves an expensive self-honesty.
Excellent.
ReplyDeleteThat Reagan fellow, the actor, he had been a Roosevelt Democrat too. :)
You've done a fine job of describing my father. His political "leanings" have seemed to me to always be opposed to the way he lived and worked.
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to say I appreciated your comment on Neo's blog today. We've got to be in it for the long haul. Complacency was almost the death of us, wasn't it?
ReplyDeleteYou have to choose to pick the red pill...
ReplyDeleteHe tells me his opinions. He's an educated, intelligent man, and he says things very thoughtfully. He very thoughtfully tells me the opinions he has formed after paying careful attention to the events of the day. These are his own judgments, not anything some journalist has predigested for him and packaged in a way to get him to agree with the standard liberal journalist narrative.
ReplyDeleteBy sheer coincidence, his opinions, even his original ones, line up exactly with the prevailing beliefs of his sources.
Father-in-law?
Some weeks ago my job required that I travel to Washington, DC. One rush hour evening I was riding the Red Line in Northwest, DC with a well attired 30's something fellow in a business suit. This fellow removed his I-phone ear piece and announced that someone had just twittered to him about another politician at a live news conference who was publicly conceding that he had an affair. Responding, I asked the identity of the politician. This fellow then identified the offend politician as another of those “Republican family values people”. He then proceeded to disavow any objection to this politician's adulterous behavior and went on dismissively deride any such concern. I was struck how my fellow passenger's extended response seemed identical, word for word, to that of a brother-in-law (and former Democratic political operative) in similar situation about a year and a half earlier. With such experience of the earlier instance in mind, I carefully inquired whether my fellow passenger thought that, as a politician, the adulterous governor should be expected to have enough social insight to understand the likely consequences of his risky behavior; and that any such misbehavior might suggest inadequate self control and judgment for such a responsible public position. To this the poor fellow seemed discomforted. Even after I provided an example of a former married New Jersey governor who appointed his Israeli sailer boy lover to a high profile state position for which a security clearance was required, a security clearance the boyfriend could not have obtained, my fellow rider was unable to respond in any meaningful way. I was left with the impression that this fellow was uncomfortable thinking outside of the media's framing.