Freedom squandered

Freedom squandered

: Elie Wiesel, a man who truly understands the value of freedom and democracy, is disappointed and depressed about this election.

Has it always been this way? Have we always had adversaries hurling insults at each other rather than allowing debate and analysis to influence undecided voters? Should we be afraid to trust the public to comprehend the issues in depth? One could almost say that the goal is not to inspire but to incite, not to inform but to dumb down.

I’m not talking about the candidates themselves. I have deep esteem for one and great respect for the other. They represent two political ideologies, two philosophies for this society, and each of us is free to choose the one with whom we identify.

But why the disagreeable, offensive tone that emanates from this event?

Wiesel has covered American presidential elections since Kennedy v. Nixon and he has never seen a year like this.

In every case, the supporters and spokesmen of both the incumbent and the opposition expressed themselves with ardor, conviction and dedication.

But never with such violence as we see today….

Why this need, among people on both sides, to let the discussion be dominated by nastiness and ugliness? And why don’t they listen to the voices calling for an end to this slide into the gutter? Do we care about what our children think as they watch this on television? What are they to make of the exchanges, insults and attacks among politicians? …

This presidential campaign is full of verbal violence. In fact, it’s bursting with it. Instead of elevating the debate, this campaign is debasing it. Instead of examining the serious problems of a society in crisis, it’s treating them in a superficial way. Rather than comparing one philosophical doctrine with its counterpart, the campaigns are succumbing to propaganda — propaganda that is striking for its excessive anger and its lack of elegance, generosity and even simple courtesy.

This is the election of shame. [via Keats’ Telescope]

30 responses to “Freedom squandered”

  1. shell Avatar

    Has it always been this way?
    “Ma! Ma! Where’s my Pa?
    Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!”
    Um, pretty much. Yup.

  2. up2date Avatar

    I agree with much of what Mr. Wiesel writes, but I am not prepared to concede this point.
    What in my view has happened is the candidates themselves have become increasingly comfortable allowing attacks by proxy. One candidate more than the other, they have quietly sat on the sidelines while their followers have gone places they could not and would not go themselves. More than this, the proxy attackers have received encouragement and direction (and likely more) from the official campaigns. I am not partisan enough to think this is an issue for only one candidate, but I am likewise not blind enough to miss the fact that one side has a far more sophisticated approach to this than the other.

  3. Mike NYC Avatar

    As I watched the RNC, I didn’t find myself thinking, “Oh, I shouldn’t vote for Kerry.” No. I was thinking something much worse: How on earth was Kerry — after the viciousness of these attacks — supposed to govern our nation should he actually win?
    I don’t mean this in a partisan way. The hatred towards Bush starting long before the election cycle.
    I know there is usually a time of healing after an election, but can we really heal from this one?

  4. Brett Avatar

    Perhaps the Dem strategy for 2008 has already begun. Build as much venom as possible into the system and then use it as a campaign theme: “Bush’s eight years were hate-filled. Bring civility back to America. Vote Clinton/Vilsack.”
    Republicans look likely to gain seats in the Senate, which would bring a clear majority. Should be an interesting next four years, as the Dems wan in power. Hopefully, they have some clear vision and definitive plans. That, more than any reason, is why they’re losing now.

  5. Angelos Avatar

    If the campaigns to date contain no real issues or content, I wonder what the debates will be like. I suspect we’ll hear a lot of “I know you are but what am I?” Maybe some “neener neener” too?
    It’s pathetic really, the Kerry campaign, because the ammo is there.
    Here’s the latest: The White House put government agencies on notice this month that if Bush is reelected, his budget for 2006 may include $2.3 billion in spending cuts from virtually all domestic programs not mandated by law, including education, homeland security and others central to Bush’s campaign.
    Disaster, disaster, disaster. Everything Bush touches fails. Everything Cheney touches fails. Not to mention Rumsfeld, Feith, and Wolfowitz. 4 years of lies and failure, yet they have 47% of the population snowed. Amazing.

  6. HE Avatar

    Angelos you forgot to take your meds…again.

  7. carsonfire Avatar

    Mike NYC: “How on earth was Kerry — after the viciousness of these attacks — supposed to govern our nation should he actually win?”
    How on earth is Bush supposed to govern with the ongoing attacks he’s been subjected to since day one?
    This is the problem with all this nonsense about how the campaign has suddenly sunk into the mire. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, none of you complaining now — none of you — were this concerned about the state of democracy when Michael Moore was riding high, Al Franken’s ABB radio network was being cobbled together, Ted Kennedy was making speeches about neanderthals and Bush making up the war in Crawford Texas, the AWOL stories when they were first covered ad nauseaum, MoveOn.Org created “Bush is Hitler” ads, cable networks were running comedies about what an idiot Bush is, Bruce Springsteen’s plans for a bash-Bush concert series, etc, etc. Sure, some of you mildly tsk tsked, but tsk tsking is a weak response to the outright lies, innuendo, and conspiracy tales coming from the Moore/MoveOn.Org camp.
    Here, we have a concrete example of a large media establishment betraying the public’s trust by trying to interfere with a democratic election by fobbing off obvious forgeries, and all of you mud-enablers are suddenly grievous that the fact-checkers are destroying all of the good vibes in the air.
    YOU people are the ones who should be ashamed — you’re willing to accept mud as facts when it’s convenient and supports your worldview and politics, but quick to call facts mud when facts are inconvenient and uncomfortable.

  8. Chris Josephson Avatar
    Chris Josephson

    Before Bush was elected, there were people who seemed to have this pathological hatred for Bush. That hatred didn’t abate, it grew and has been fanned during the years Bush has held office.
    What we are seeing NOW is not only because of a ‘dirty presidential campaign’. The ‘dirty campaign’ is caused, in large part, by the anger against Bush that has been simmering and growing these past years.
    People who support Bush are reacting to the anger they have witnessed, and been subject to themselves. There is anger on both sides caused mainly by people who were not able to just let go of their anger when Bush won last time.
    Bush was not my choice for president last time. I was angry at first when he became president. I got over it. I can’t understand people who have allowed their anger at Bush to simmer to the extent it has. I think this anger has impacted the Democrats MORE than the Republicans.
    The Democrats were forced to field candidates that could tap into and appease the anger people have towards Bush. Candidates that didn’t appease, or play to, this anger were discarded. The discarded Democratic candidates MAY have been able to win. The current candidate, Kerry, is not the best choice.

  9. Brett Avatar

    Sitting Michael Moore next to Jimmy Carter at the Dem convention is the most blatant confirmation of what both carsonfire and Chris are saying.
    So will it subside if the Dems lose big this election?

  10. carsonfire Avatar

    Mike NYC: Apologies for missing your second paragraph. Let me acknowledge that you did say that Bush was offered rough treatment, too… but that’s still valid to my point. None of you thought to worry about Bush’s rough treatment until now, when it becomes an issue for your candidate.
    And, sorry to be judgemental, but I don’t hear sincerity from the hand-wringers now. There is no evidence — not a whit — that if the Republicans backed down and acted nicey-nice for the rest of the election, that the Democrats would follow suit. Moore’s film is still being released to DVD, the MoveOn.Org folks are still smearing non-stop, and we’ll still be treated to the constant harangues that Bush is Hitler, and even the candidate himself, who has personally attacked Bush by saying that he “f*cked up” in Iraq and personally referred to the shaky AWOL “scandal” as an issue, shows no signs of abating his style, which is to attack the tangible actions of his opponent while offering nothing but vague bloviation about what he would do in the same situations.
    You may even believe it, but pleas like JJ’s really aren’t pleas for a universal truce… this is nostalgia for the good old days when Democrats had a stranglehold on major media, and challenges from Republicans were more or less muted and ineffective.

  11. up2date Avatar

    carsonfire,
    Don’t you think “none of you” is both a bit strong and difficult to substantiate?
    Both sides are guilty. When I see someone trying to pass the blame off almost entirely to one side, I suspect I am dealing with a partisan.
    When I read your post, I see phrases like

  12. Hovig Avatar

    Disagree with both Wiesel and “up2date” above. Yes, there are proxy attacks on both sides, but the DNC distinguishes itself with direct attacks. McAuliffe and his deputy director have personally attacked Bush on multiple occasions. They are not proxies, they are principals. I’ve not noticed the same from the GOP, and I don’t think this is a distinction without a difference.
    I won’t even discuss the basic lack of interest in Kerry’s 20-year career as DA, Lt Gov, and Senator, most notably from Kerry himself; the massive funding disparities between left-wing and right-wing “527” groups [the true proxies here]; the Famous Movie that’s about to be released on national TV; and the increasing number of anecdotal reports of people too scared to post Bush/Cheney bumper stickers or yard signs. I live in Houston, hardly Kerry territory, but the positive ratio of Kerry signage to Bush signage is pretty remarkable. Don’t let me get started about the verbal abuse I’ve received, from different people, when they got the notion I might not vote for Kerry. (By the way, I suggest that anyone who wishes to argue about this paragraph’s latter three points should concentrate their energy instead upon the first one.)
    Which brings me to my main point: Wiesel’s thesis is faulty. In order for me to buy it, I must equate winning with unfairness, which I won’t do. With respect to this blog, to its commenters, and to Mr Wiesel himself, his essay is essentially a plea for one side to please stop winning so badly. This plaint didn’t work against Michael Jordan or Shaquille O’Neal, so I can’t accept it here.
    In a word, the GOP is winning, with or without mud-slinging. The DNC is losing, even with mud from McAuliffe himself. This month we’ve seen many prominent Democrats (like Sue Estrich) claim they’re not nasty enough. This is abject nonsense. The fact is that they’re losing, so they comfort themselves by thinking they’re being outslung. This is a superficial, technical, and incorrect answer to a fundamental and deeper problem.

  13. Mike NYC Avatar

    Isn’t it telling that even this thread has become a partisan debate? It’s easier.
    Caronfire: I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. And maybe you prove that my little worry isn’t necessary. Because Bush has been able to govern while dealing with the severe attacks from Moore and others. And now the dems are getting it shoved back in their face. So should Kerry win — unlikely as it seems — he’ll be just fine.
    So this proves Jeff’s thesis, right? We should get rid of the the extremists on both sides. But man, it is tough when we all feel so strongly — on both sides — about what’s going on these days.

  14. Andy Avatar

    Mudslinging-? Not yet.
    America chooses its leaders with the most rambunctious, nasty, slanderous, vile campaigning imaginable. Yet, because BOTH SIDES are free to engage the public gets the opportunity to see both sides attack and respond.
    Choosing the leader of the free world should not be a set piece debate by gentle persons to the accompaniment of Vivaldi.
    The choices of the leaders should be tough, fraught with slings and arrows, barbs and nasty bits. Once elected, the enemies of freedom will seek to draw out President astray. They will insult, incite, trick, trap and entreat to gain an advantage.
    We must know that the leader can deal with outrage and insult without losing perspective or charm.
    How else should we choose the leader?
    Mudslinging is better than bomb throwing. Revolutions are nasty and get people killed. Elections are a better alternative

  15. Angelos Avatar

    Again HE, can you counter the facts? Of course not.
    No Child Left behind? Never mind.
    Homeland Security? Never mind.
    And carsonfire, ease up on the hypocricy. Let’s not pretend Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and hundreds of equally biased newspapers and magazines don’t exist. You can’t make a serious argument that one side’s mud (the side you disagree with) is innuendo while you’re side’s mud is somehow lily-white. Any such argument lacks credibility.
    Especially when Rush and Bill are well known for making up “facts” along the way, just to help their own nonsense along. They don’t even try to hide it, in fact they revel in their listners’ gullibility.

  16. up2date Avatar

    Two thoughts come to mind.
    The first is from a football game. One player takes a swing at second player. The second guy swings back. The refs turn around just in time to see the second player and only he gets the flag.
    The second is of an interview I saw with Karl Rove a couple of weeks ago. Rove, with a straight face and a sincere tone, announced (I am paraphrasing) that the democratic convention spent most of its time attacking Bush while the RNC was positive and upbeat. It did not matter to him whether his statements were true or not, he just wanted to get that on the record and hopefully get the soundbite picked up here and there. The technique is contagious. Many on message boards and blogs have adopted a similar style. And again, I do not point fingers at one party or the other specifically, but there are several examples in this thread.
    Changing focus a bit:
    Kerry came out and denounced a MoveOn.org ad which questioned Bush’s military service. I may support Kerry, but I am neither blind nor dumb. Kerry denounced the ad when he was under attack by the swift boaters. It was convenient for him to do so as it gave him the appearance of the

  17. carsonfire Avatar

    Mike NYC: “So this proves Jeff’s thesis, right? We should get rid of the the extremists on both sides.”
    No, the inverse is the truth. You can’t get rid of extremists on both sides, or even one side, without abridging freedom of speech.
    That’s what’s becoming an issue, here.
    And I would never suggest that the hypocrisy I’m pointing out is owned by one side or the other. Angelos’ point about Rush Limbaugh is nonsensical, and only supports what I’m saying. Replace Moore with Rush… how can you say that independent fact-checkers who have exposed forgeries at CBS are “cheapening the debate” after years and years of Rush Limbaugh?
    And if somebody’s calling me a hypocrite, is it because I keep asking why nobody calls for Moore’s film to be canned? Personally, I would be against it. I just find it interesting as an ethical challenge to people who want veterans and fact-checkers to be shut up that they can’t say the same thing about a guy who’s releasing a conspiratorial hit piece on DvD right before the election.

  18. Angelos Avatar

    There’s a big difference between Moore and Swift/Rush/etc.
    Moore uses video footage, something we can all see with our own eyes, and tells us his interpretation. Are there stretches? Oh yes. As often as my fiancee and I laughed at Bush’s face or Moore’s dialogue, we also groaned at some of the more questionable conclusions or correlations.
    But still, I didn’t need Moore to see how terrified and helpless Bush was while he read My Pet Goat. Clearly a man out of his depth, a man of no character or strength. But after his many previous business failures and bailouts by Daddy and Saud, you already knew that, right?
    But Rush and Bill, they don’t even start with a fact. When Bill was famously threatening a boycott of Canada, he cited his “successful” call for a boycott of France. “They’ve lost billions of dollars in France, according to the Paris Business Review”, he said.
    Of course, there is no Paris Business Review. Unless you count ParisBusinessReview.com and ParisBusinessReview.net, which are pretty funny. And exports to America are up since 2002. But why should a little truth stop him?
    Rush, well, his outright falsehoods are well-documented. But people keep nodding along. Ditto!

  19. Chris Josephson Avatar
    Chris Josephson

    Addressing the examples people have mentioned: Rush and Moore.
    The difference I see between the RNC and the DNC principals is that Moore had a seat at the DNC right next to ex-Pres. Carter. I assume Rush was at the RNC (don’t know because I don’t listen to him) but he was not given a ‘good’ seat. Nor were any of the other anti-Kerry critics. If they were at the RNC, they were not given pride of place.
    To me, the DNC endorsed Moore, and all the people who support him, by where they seated him. They also endorsed all the garbage Moore has spewed. I thought it was disgusting and was very disappointed to see Moore next to Carter.
    The RNC has not, to my knowledge, given any of the critics ‘from their side’ the same endorsement. This is the big difference I see. The endorsement from the DNC itself spoke volumes.
    The change, if it can ever happen, away from being so negative MUST come from the top. It’s fine for the principals, from each party, to: very vigorously disagree, point out weaknesses in the other side, mention the other side’s record, mention the opponent’s background (even Guard and Vietnam, for example).
    It’s NOT acceptable to me to hear principals from the DNC call our current president a LIAR. Point out Bush’s faults, foibles, and failings. But don’t buy into the loons who like to repeat that ‘Bush is a LIAR’.
    I don’t support Democrats or Republicans. I have voted for both and have supported both. I do support Pres. Bush this year, but am not a ‘Bushie’. I am very distressed by the anger I see principal Dems. playing up to this year.

  20. PatM. Avatar

    Jeff,
    You have the power to change the conversation on this page from talking about mud to talking about anything else – including the issues. The fact that you insist on talking about mud suggests to me that you are not serious about changing the subject. Your real interest appears to be about finding a rationale you can live with for why your chosen candidate will lose.
    Sorry Jeff, it has nothing to do with the mud!!!

  21. spongeworthy Avatar
    spongeworthy

    I don’t think it matters much who wins the election, but I do know who stated this awful plunge into this no-boundaries partisanship. It started with that damned election and snowballed with the Civil Rights Commission report. That was despicable.
    I know an awful lot of very angry Gore supporters and I know damned well who brought the vitriol to a boil here.
    The reason we hear no real debate on the issues is that the elephant in the room is the Iraq War and one candidate can’t pick a position without alienating half of his supporters. There are a few other issues like that (i.e. Gay marriage)where you won’t see the candidate take a position. Can you guess which candidate?

  22. paul a'barge Avatar
    paul a’barge

    “This is the election of shame.”
    No, this is the election of the moment.
    Get a grip, Jeff. Study some history. Watch the History Channel. This is nothing compared to other American elections, including the second and third.
    Please. Histrionics add nothing.

  23. MD Avatar

    Um, just because a bunch of pundits and writers and bloggers get their knickers all in a twist (did I just write that?) doesn’t mean that people won’t vote on the issues or don’t have an idea of what the real issues are. I mean, I’ve got a pulse. And maybe even a brain, some say. I think I have some idea about the world just from being a sentient being. I’m an adult, I work, I have friends whose family died in Iraq. I know how I’m going to vote and it ain’t cause of any of this nonsense.
    But I find it strange, Mr. Jarvis, that you say we are not divided and all really moderate and now you say there is all this mud-slinging and an election of shame. Well I vehemently disagree. Most people have an idea, after Sept. 11, how they feel about a more or less robust foreign policy, have an idea about how their bank balances are, how their neighbors are doing. People do vote on issues. On the issues that matter most to them. And as far as I am concerned, that’s just fine.

  24. carsonfire Avatar

    Angelos: “But still, I didn’t need Moore to see how terrified and helpless Bush was while he read My Pet Goat.”
    You were there? No, you weren’t. You saw Moore’s edited presentation. And so you’re still parroting the Moore/MoveOn.Org smear. And don’t pay any attention to Kerry’s admittance that he sat around stunned for 40 minutes. I wouldn’t blame anybody for being stunned for a full hour or more after that, most of us were. I don’t begrudge Kerry his 40 minutes any more than I do Bush’s five or six.
    By saying this, though, you’re repeating just the kind of mud that we’ve had for months, and thereby proving my point once again. Some of you can’t stop! Even in a thread where JJ is pleading at the rest of us for more civility and trying to convince us that it’s really swift boat vets and blogging fact-checkers distracting us from the issues, you’re single-handedly sabotaging his argument by continuing to attack with the full force of echo-chamber-driven personal attacks.

  25. Kat Avatar

    Angelos has his blinders on and they point in one direction–left. He couldn’t see the truth if it smacked him in the face. And truth doesn’t come in a large bag of garbage with a unshaven face and three chins.

  26. ATM Avatar

    One of things I find funny is that some people on the left are claiming that “Bush Knew!!!” while they are also claiming that “Bush sat there stunned doing nothng.” If Bush knew, he must be a good actor. But wait, I thought Bush was a talentedless buffoon.

  27. ATM Avatar

    That should be talentless buffoon.

  28. Ruth Avatar

    We have all watched as mud became the campaign tactic of the day.
    Another approach (forgive the length, I thought it should be quoted in full rather than excerpted) picked up from the Post this a.m.:
    To the extent that the American public has any image of him at all, House
    Speaker Denny Hastert seems to be an avuncular presence in an otherwise thuggish
    town, the good cop to Tom DeLay’s bad one, the gavel rather than the hammer. But
    seeming more nuanced than DeLay is about as low a bar as a person could ever
    clear, and over the past month the speaker of the House hasn’t even done that.
    In fact, Hastert has engaged in the kind of slander that should prompt his
    colleagues to censure him.
    The particular object of Hastert’s ire is George Soros, the hedge-fund
    billionaire and champion of political pluralism and democracy in Eastern Europe
    and the former Soviet Union. Soros is also a fierce critic of the president, and
    the largest individual donor to the Democratic “527” groups this year.
    For which reason, Hastert has decided to go after Soros with allegations the
    speaker will not and cannot support, but for which he won’t apologize either.
    In an interview with Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” on the day
    before the Republican National Convention, Hastert said, “You know, I don’t
    know where George Soros gets his money. I don’t know where — if it comes from
    overseas or it comes from drug groups or where it comes from.”
    A plainly startled Wallace asked, “You think he may be getting money from
    the drug cartel?”
    “I’m saying we don’t know,” Hastert answered. “The fact is, we
    don’t know where this money comes from.”
    Lest you think that Hastert simply got up on the wrong side of the bed that
    Sunday, he’d made the same claim — again, couched in the conditional — on Aug.
    23 on radio station WNYC. “You know, Soros’s money, some of that is coming
    from overseas. It could be drug money.”
    Republicans who complain, rightly, about the shaky scholarship of Kitty Kelley
    should have to explain why the speaker’s innuendo is any more acceptable. Kelley
    at least went through the pretense of citing sources, or a source, or an unnamed
    source. Hastert didn’t even do that.
    Now, it’s true that Soros has given money to drug-related causes and campaigns.
    He’s donated to a number of successful state initiative campaigns to legalize
    marijuana for medical purposes. He’s financed extensive needle-exchange programs
    in Eastern Europe to block the spread of AIDS. But until Hastert started
    spouting his charges, no one had ever suggested that Soros — whose hedge-fund
    career is extensively documented — was ever in cahoots with the Colombian
    cartels.
    Well, almost no one. The so-called Executive Intelligence Review, the journal of
    Lyndon LaRouche and his delusional band, has indeed made that charge. This may
    testify to the breadth of Hastert’s reading, but it doesn’t say much for his
    judgment.
    The irony here is that Soros is a figure whom Republicans should extol —
    arguably the world’s most effective capitalist anti-communist. He made his money
    the old-fashioned way, on Wall Street. He is a prominent apostle of philosopher
    Karl Popper, one of the 20th century’s most luminous opponents of
    totalitarianism. Soros sank major money into opposition groups in the former
    Soviet bloc and provided crucial funding to the forces that toppled Slobodan
    Milosevic in Yugoslavia.
    But Soros has also been a critic of market fundamentalism and, more recently, of
    George W. Bush’s economic and foreign policies. Which to Hastert means that it’s
    okay to transform a drug-policy reformer into a drug kingpin, provided he begins
    his accusation with “I don’t know if.”
    Soros wrote Hastert demanding a retraction, and the speaker responded with a
    letter all but denying that he’d appeared on “Fox News Sunday.”
    “I never implied that you were a criminal and I never would,” he
    wrote, “that’s not my style.” Lest there be lingering doubt that black
    is white, Hastert’s press secretary declared, “Of course the speaker
    doesn’t think [Soros] gets money from drug cartels.”
    Hastert didn’t say he was misconstrued, mind you; he said he didn’t say what he
    said. This was exactly the same tack taken by Vice President Cheney in
    responding to the furor over his remark that the United States would be more
    likely to be attacked if John Kerry were elected president. Cheney didn’t say
    “What I meant was” but “What I said was.”
    By denying they’d said what they’d said, neither Hastert nor Cheney has felt
    obliged to apologize to the objects of his slander. Soros is now filing a
    complaint against Hastert with the House ethics committee, though he must know
    that the committee is not about to recommend the censure of the speaker.
    Hastert, after all, was just following party policy. In this summer of Swift
    boats and Soros, the Republican leaders have chosen to cling to power through
    the kind of slander we have not heard since the heyday of Joseph McCarthy, and
    like Tailgunner Joe, they have no shame or decency left.
    Please note: message attached

  29. Kat Avatar

    {the Republican leaders have chosen to cling to power through the kind of slander we have not heard since the heyday of Joseph McCarthy, and like Tailgunner Joe, they have no shame or decency left.} Now, THAT’S rich– Do you have no shame or decency left ,Ruth, or do you just swallow this crap on command? I’ll bet you believe Bush eats babies and poisons pregnant women—because Soros’ slime said so.

  30. Demosophist Avatar

    A little historical perspective might be in order. The election of 1864, between McLellan and Lincoln was every bit as nasty and personal, and it even included depictions of Lincoln as an ape, ironically incapable of coherent speech. There were other similarities: A wartime election. An opposition candidate with military leadership credentials with strong ties to a powerful antiwar contingent in the Democratic Party (the so-called “Copperheads”). An election with the critical social/political issue of the day at stake (chattel slavery then, cultic totalitarianism now). The Republicans with the morally clear position against an overly nuanced opposition.
    We’ve seen this all before, although not within living memory.