On Friday nights I download a podcast of PBS’s “Washington Week,” a weekly television news program featuring a roundtable of journalists who discuss politics and public affairs, moderated by Gwen Ifil. Lately, I’ve also been downloading the program’s “Webcast Extra,” in which the panel takes questions submitted by email or from members of the audience (when there is an audience).
This week, the podcast – which was a recording of a show filmed in Denver in anticipation of the Democratic National Convention – included a fascinating exchange between a member of the audience and one of the panelists, James Barnes, who writes for the National Journal:
QUESTIONER: John McCain made a statement after Russia invaded Georgia that “nations don’t invade other nations in the 21st century,” apparently not acknowledging our invasion of Iraq. Other than in the blogosphere, the press paid little attention to this statement that I saw. And is this because the press is timid and afraid of being called unpatriotic, or did it not, in your mind, deserve more critical comment from the general press?
IFIL: (to the panel) General thoughts?
BARNES: Well I think, um, I guess I would argue for the purposes of this election it’s pretty clear which candidates, how they stand on the war on Iraq, and I think that’s very clear. I mean, if you want to call out McCain for being hypocritical, I suppose you can, but I would, I’m not so sure, um, I mean, if we jump on everything, when we jump on everything, we are already, then we are part of a process that just magnifies these gaffes and sort of sends the election on this constant, ever-changing, 24-, 48-, 72-hour news cycle, which quite frankly, personally, I do not believe, uh, serves people well. There are other journalists who do, and they are all over the blogosphere. And so they are out there. But I think that we shouldn’t make big deals out of what I would argue just isn’t really a significant, I don’t really think it’s that significant an issue.
I thought this was a fascinating exchange. I find myself wanting to refer to Glenn Greenwald’s piece, which might surprise people given earlier comments I have posted. (Like Walt Whitman, I contradict myself.)
I think this response perfectly captures what is wrong with our mediasphere. The idea that gaffes on the Right (the Far Right, by the way) deserve no exposition or mention is something like the “spontaneous philosophy” of all Serious commentators, to adapt a concept put forward by the Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci.
It just doesn’t occur to anyone in the mediasphere that McCain’s comments contain anything remotely approaching a contradiction or irony or that his hypocrisy might delegitimize him in any way. It’s as natural as pie not to say anything about his claim. But, well, if Obama goes bodysurfing shirtless whoa boy, now that’s Serious News.
More to the point, McCain is not here making a gaffe, but expressing his real views: when we invade someone, it’s not a country invading another country, it’s just the right and proper order of the world. We–and by we, I mean our military-industrial elites–are always excluded from the rules and laws we expect others to follow.
Our elites are not subject to the rule of law, only those other nasty guys. It’s a Rule of Law for them, Anything We Like for us.
Comment by Lee — August 25, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
I think it’s absolutely correct that McCain is expressing his real views here – views he would defend vigorously. McCain’s comment isn’t a “gaffe,” therefore, but an absurd position the press cannot criticize for fear of being called unpatriotic.
I especially enjoy Barnes’ remark that the issue of nations invading other nations “isn’t really significant.” I can’t think of anything more significant, especially given McCain’s statement that Russia’s invasion of Georgia was probably the first really important international crisis since the end of the Cold War.
Comment by Ian — August 25, 2008 @ 8:10 pm