Remember just scant months ago that most, if not all of you, Dear Readers, discussed with the Stiftung the Warlord’s sweeping assault on the very foundations of our liberal democratic republic? Our conversations were about profound constitutional issues or geopolitical ruminations? One article of faith and comic punching bag was the always reliable (and there is nothing worse in a pundit) Hitch and his diluted Trotsyism, nostalgia for Paris in 69, and of course, the Kurds.
So imagine the cognitive dissonance we felt reading his latest and had to agree with (except with its close) him. His point is a simple one. Our public discourse has transcended meaning and gone full circle back into the meta symbology of the pre-literate tradition. Hitch essentially recycles what Nadine Gordimer wrote before in “The Unkillable Word”:
Conservative, liberal and left-wing thinkers in contemporary schools of political philosophy agree about one thing; man became man not by the tool but by the Word. It is not walking upright and using a stick to dig for food or strike a blow that makes a human being, it is speech. And neither apes nor dolphins whispering in the ocean share with us the ability to transform this direct communication and commune between people and generations who will never meet.
What we are watching today is a march backwards from speech to the primitive cognitive capabilities of limited scope in oral traditions and basic symbols. Hitch, of course, is wrong to blame it on political campaigns. It surrounds us, envelopes us everywhere (to paraphrase Yoda). The electronic era encourages this, naturally. Even professionals such as doctors, lawyers, executives, etc. are texting each other with short hand — ‘R U 4 Lu” (Are you ready for lunch?), etc. We all know this just builds on the early emoticons and abbreviations online. But as we have repeatedly said, the Crown Prince, for all his vaunted ‘rock star’ skills, is the perfect example of a ‘leader’ taking us all backwards to that pre-literate state. If one reads his speeches they are actually quite vapid. Hitch is indeed on point (can we really be writing that???) re sloganeering.
Professor Krugman has a slightly different angle. His focus is more tactical and addresses the campaigns directly. We agree him as well. The Crown Prince really is not the progressive he wants to project according to his scant political record. And certainly, trouncing Alan Keyes is no giant hurdle for anyone. We concede that Obama is the best political counter puncher since Bill Clinton. And surely Mark Penn should refund his doubtlessly bloated fees, etc. But shouldn’t we expect more? Especially if the deal is sealed tomorrow?
Perhaps Obama is merely a sign of the times. A fish in a fish tank not realizing it is wet. But isn’t this the whole point of his political existence (such as it is)? Change? One must give the Crown Prince some space, too. Even a president, let alone a presidential candidate, has limited overall impact on a society without a function apparatus like the Warlord’s Neocon/Movement coalition. And the goal is to win an election after all. Adlai Stevenson serves to remind us all of that. Consder that aside from the overly saccharine parts in William F. Buckley tributes, the real truth is that a show like “Firing Line” would never get green lit today. Tucker! Tweety! Anderson 360! The Crown Prince as destiny?
Here’s a question for all — what’s your three word description of the state of our world?