Washington Defines Politics Downward

Wall Street Journal ^ | 2/24/06 | Daniel Henninger

[harpu]

Witnessing the political reaction this week to the administration's Dubai ports-management decision, the phrase that insistently called out from memory was the title of a famous essay by the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "Defining Deviancy Down." One would not have thought it possible, but Washington's political class is defining our politics down.

After nearly seven days of elevating the Cheney bird-hunting accident to the level of a national crisis, now comes this week's flap over managing the ports. To be sure, the matter of secure U.S. ports trumps the hunting of quail as an affaire d'état. But it was the strikingly low quality of the politicians' commentary and behavior that attracted notice.

- snip -

It has been a truism for a century that press stereotypes set the tone of many public events. We used to call this the conventional wisdom; now it's a "narrative." By and large it's a neutral phenomenon. But in our jacked-up media age, first impressions -- false or true -- becomes powerful and hard to alter. Surely this is one reason Vice President Cheney's office resisted "releasing" the shooting incident into the media ozone.

Our political elites, rather than recognize they are playing with a new kind of fire, instead have become pyromaniacs, lighting the fires. New Orleans even now can't get out from under the initial crazy statements the pols were hurling over Katrina. Our politicians seem to have arrived at the conclusion that they somehow no longer bear responsibility for what they say, or that there is no consequence to what they say. But they do and there is. Yosemite Sam was a cartoon. The ability of government to function in a dangerous world is not.

[harpu]

Great editorial...if you would like to see it all, ping me and I will get you more via FReepmail.

[harpu]

Oops...the link; at the Opinion Journal

[G.Mason]

" ... New Orleans even now can't get out from under the initial crazy statements the pols, the MSM, and the talking heads, were hurling over Katrina."

Good article.

[olezip]

Not a bad editorial, but the writer suffers from "Inside the Beltway" syndrome. He is correct about quail hunting and Katrina. The MSM took the lead as usual to do everything they can to discredit the Bush administration; even if it supports the enemy and borders on sedition. However, the port issue came about from the people themselves. The MSM finally reacted to it after almost a week, and probably only because Democrats put it up front on their agenda. The MSM reacted after their leaders, the Democrats, reacted. Both Republicans and Democrats are responding to an overwhelming volume of email, faxes, telephone calls, and letters on the wisdom of allowing a government with a tarnished track record access to sensitive information about the operation of our ports.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

the port issue came about from the people themselves. The MSM finally reacted to it after almost a week, and probably only because Democrats put it up front on their agenda. The MSM reacted after their leaders, the Democrats, reacted. Both Republicans and Democrats are responding to an overwhelming volume of email, faxes, telephone calls, and letters on the wisdom of allowing a government with a tarnished track record access to sensitive information about the operation of our ports.

Agreed, with the caveat that the Democrats are not the leaders of the MSM - in general they are followers of it. Democrats get good press because they have no principle other than going after good press. The Democrats wouldn't have jumped on the issue if they had no PR opportunity in it.

Granted that there has been a groundswell of opposition to the UAE port deal, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Steyn are and have been voices of thoughtful analysis in opposition to the "shoot first and ask questions later" crowd. We have the same issue with ChiComs (already) owning West Coast port facilities.

[olezip]

I have been listening to Rush Limbaugh, but he has yet to address the concerns about giving the UAE a seat at our table. The UAE supported Osama; they apparently have poured money into terrorist groups; what is their position toward the right of Israel to exist? Cannot our country find another way to "bond" with UAE without compromising our security? Rush has done nothing but talk around such concerns, to the extent that I have changed stations. ...been listening to Rush since 1988 or so.

Sorry to hear that California has turned over ports to the Chicoms, probably to enrich Democrat politicians in CA.