READERS PROVIDE ANALYSIS OF HUCKABEE BLOG

            Well, our first blog-“Should Mike Huckabee Be Held Accountable For Lying on Obama?”- engendered the kind of thoughtful, intelligent and diverse reactions I’d hoped for when I began formulating an idea exchange.

            Charles applied a journalist’s sensibility to the issue.  He wrote:

 The fact that the national media gave Huckabee a relative "pass" for his gaffe is another example of the press abdicating its responsibility for exposing and calling out this kind of egregious dissembling. Thanks, Bill, for trying to fill that void.

Usually, when thoughtful people attack issues, they open myriad avenues through which those issues may be addressed.  Charles’ analysis is no exception.  In an era of right wing politicians run amok, the need for a courageous and impartial press is stronger than ever.  Imagine if there had been no Edward R. Murrow to challenge the megalomaniacal Sen. Joseph McCarthy, or no Woodward and Bernstein to investigate Richard Nixon.  Yet we’ve been careening, out of control, toward the proverbial abyss, without the brakes an independent press normally provides, ever since 9/11 when the press jumped into the pool of hysteria, swallowing whole anything that sounded remotely patriotic, regardless of merit. 

Our pusillanimous press is a subject that deserves and will receive a great deal more attention in this space.  But for now, I’d like to focus on just one of the many reasons the press has become so ineffective:  so-called impartiality.   The culture of American journalism demands that both sides of any issue be given a fair hearing, even if there is only one side.  On virtually every story where there is any sort of controversy, the report usually goes something like this, “The Left says four, the Right says two, and the truth is probably somewhere around three.”  We’ve heard that line of reasoning so much that many of us have been conditioned to accept it.  Yet there are two problems with this specious reasoning.

The first problem with the “truth is in the middle” syndrome is that it presupposes that both sides are honest and genuinely seeking an honest solution.  The reality is that the right wingers, like Huckabee and Gingrich, are not debating honestly, they are LYING!   Secondly, that argument assumes that there is a far right and a far left.  But as the far right has pulled the discourse to the right, the far left vanished, so what is regarded as the left now is where the moderate right used to be.  Barry Goldwater, for example, has moved from far right to moderate, posthumously.  What has come to be regarded as the far Left, would, in a more reasonable society, (heck, even here just a few years ago) be considered the middle. 

Kudos, Charles, for your insights.

Marcus focused more on Huckabee’s words than on the media’s lack of censure:

Another problem with Huckabee and Gingrich is their attempt to revise history. The British were imperialist and I certainly hope the President is anti-colonialist. Their position seems to be the west is infallible. This is a pervasive attitude among many who support these types of politicians. Such a position makes it impossible to have realistic political discourse.

                 I could not agree more; particularly in light of Gingrich’s comments that Obama is:

"so outside our comprehension that only if you understand Kenyan, anticolonial behavior can you begin to piece [him] together."

            The arguments of Huckabee and Gingrich and are so wrong on so many fundamental levels that it’s almost impossible to list the ways in which they preclude political discourse.  This is not to say that they are without historical precedent.  One calls to mind the Texans’ fight with Mexico for their freedom—their freedom to own slaves!

            Personally, I believe the real tragedy of Huckabee and Gringrich’s position lies in the fact that they retard ANY sort of discourse.  Decades after the folly of colonialism has been (I thought) accepted by all, these two idiots-who were both voted into high office- are exploiting the racism inherent in colonialism for political gain.  How can our discourse advance when we must constantly fight the same old battles over and over and over? 

Thanks Charles and Marcus for your thoughtful insights.  Here’s hoping to hear from more of you guys soon.  Come on in.  The water is perfect!!!!!