Month: September 2012

by

Going Forward

“Going forward.” I just heard an economist use the expression on the radio about future prospects for the economy.  But everybody says this now, conservative or liberal, incumbent or candidate, partisan or non-partisan. Does it mean anything?

Nothing at all. It is a space-time filler that bridges the speaker to some necessary claim or clause.  It’s an empty interjection, like “for better or worse” or “as it happens” or “at the end of the day,” none of which add anything to the sentences they decorate.  They just add length, if not weight, to a naked statement that could not be left unclothed.

What is interesting about these empty remarks is their historical significance. Why is it suddenly necessary to state we are “going forward”? Is there some serious doubt about this? Is it that we want to be abruptly removed from the present or that we dread the prospects of staying here?  Is there a constituency that opposes our “going forward” and we have to take a stand against them? Do we need to be reminded where we are going? (Not backward). Or do we simply need something to say that will rouse a consensus, as opposed to a filibuster?

Personally I believe that last explanation makes sense. In an election year everything seems to be contested. Everything can be either good or bad: government, religion, public education, competition, cooperation, peace, the National Football League.  What the incumbent believes, the candidate must oppose.  The airwaves are bristling with contrary sounds: “The Senator has long said ‘yes,’ but I have always preferred ‘no.’ How can we elect someone who collaborates with ‘yes’?” The relentless back and forth gives a feeling of inertia. We are stuck between “yes” and “no’ and no one can deliver us until November 6.

Then the voice of hope sings out “Going forward” and suddenly we believe we are moving–somewhere!  Where that “forward” may be is still a mystery, but it is not “back there.” What a relief!

This cautious optimism captures the spirit of the age. We are going somewhere! We are creating distance from the past! We are making tracks and clearing the path. To where? No idea!

If my historical theory is correct, the phrase “Going forward” will disappear in mid-November, and we will nurture a new mindless phrase.  Something like “Enjoying a breather.”

 

 

by

He Made Their Day

It’s possible that Clint Eastwood’s performance at the Republican Convention on Thursday night comes closest to what Republicans actually agree on: a depressed economy caused by an abusive President.  While the cranky actor-director did not clearly represent the Republican Platform, he might have been channeling a lot of frustration over the past two years’ of stalemate, enacted by Congress and a highly contentious primary season.

In twenty minutes of sarcasm and mockery, Eastwood exposed the id of the Republican Party, rising above the superego of the Platform, which the actual candidate does not fully subscribe to.  It was inevitable that the signature moment of the speech would be the immortal words: “Go ahead; make my day,” which suggest the best way to solve a problem is to blast it to smithereens.

No one should confuse Eastwood with his Dirty Harry persona, but neither should anyone confuse that persona with a harmless caricature of law enforcement. It is the cherished ideal of one-shot justice, the annihilation of an opponent, that drives much of the fervor of this election.

The words “negotiation” and “compromise” have lost their charm in the Republican Party, beginning with the fateful negotiation between President Obama and Speaker John Boehner over the deficit ceiling. In one weekend, the goal of compromise was demolished and the possibility of governing was blown away.  Nobody fired any shots, but the gun was placed on the table in full view to remind the participants that words would not be settling anything during the year approaching the Presidential election.

A boycott of government is not merely a power play against the ruling party, it is also an aggravation of the boycotting party.  It takes enormous will and stubbornness to do nothing, when the problems of the economy loom larger and larger.  Anger rises not only in the target of the boycott, but in the perpetrator as well.  The anger has been on display in the Primary debates as well as in the Super-Pac ads that manage to offend everybody.

But rather than be aghast at the naked anger unleashed by Clint Eastwood last week, the Republican Party might reflect on what it exposes about this campaign. There are no clear issues to separate the two parties, just resentment over the failure to govern. Certainly the parties disagree, but foremost they disagree about who should govern. At this moment there is no possibility that they will govern together.

The best outcome of this election would be an indecisive one, a division of power that would make both parties realize that no one is going to force their agenda down the others throat.  There should be four more years of learning to live with the opposition. Hopefully those elected would have a new agenda. It is impossible that government would continue to stalemate for four more years, that the voices of boycott would prevail. Legislators would have to go into conference with the goal of agreement. The President would have to confer respectfully with the leaders on the Hill.

And the Republican Party would have to come up with a better slogan than,”Go ahead; make my day.”