Posts Tagged Iraq war

Fighting ironic battles

Pearl Harbor posterI never thought I’d see the day when World War II became a source of irony. It was the definition of “good fight,” a time when the nation harnessed all of its resources to defeat what one of my high school history teachers called “made to order bad guys.”

Yet here we are. Barbasol is running a commercial featuring the viewer’s “ great grandfather” on the ground in a French village, perhaps Ste.-Merie-Eglise or St.-Lo, laconically comparing his attempt to stop Hitler with the current young generation’s obsession with tweeting and Facebooking.

Like “first world problems,” this is another example of a perverted form of thought. Its as if people think that, by noting their shortcomings in an ironic way, they don’t have to actually do anything about them.

It’s also a silly comparison. I’m not saying that my generation is perfect, but it’s not really fair to compare us to the “Greatest Generation.” We’ll never know how the social media-savvy would deal with a Great Depression or a World War, because we lived through a Great Recession and a pseudo-War on Terror.

Twitter and Facebook can lead to some shallowness, but we’ll also never know what our grandparents’ generation would have done if they grew up with these luxuries. I recently ate lunch at a restaurant packed with senior citizens, and most of them had smartphones.

Maybe we should cut back on the irony before we lose track of what we’re making ironic jokes about. This reminds me of a New York Times blog post I read recently called “How to Live Without Irony.” The author argued that too many people are using irony to avoid honest (and sometimes painful) emotional commitments.

That seems like what’s going on here. People need to accept the fact that they’re better off than others, including their own grandparents and great grandparents. That’s what those World War II soldiers were fighting for, after all.

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Not Everything Is Relative

Last week, NPR ran a story on how people “respect civility but reward rudeness” in politics. The author talked mostly about slights against President Obama, but said the trend actually started when liberals made a sport out of bashing George W. Bush.

People on both sides seem to have forgotten the concept of “respect the office, if not the person,” but saying that Bush was treated as badly Obama is being treated is an oversimplification.

It is important to remember that Bush did some genuinely bad things. He invaded Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. He took a surplus and created a deficit. He curtailed civil rights with the Patriot Act. Despite rhetoric about “the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud,” Bush did not seem personally concerned about the threat of terrorism. He gave up the search for Osama bin Laden, and instead took more time off than any other president.

These are not issues to be debated, they are facts. People disagreed with Bush’s policies at the time and now, with hindsight, we can clearly see that many of them were mistakes. Jaded analysts and high school teachers like to say that “both sides have their good points,” but sometimes one side is legitimately wrong. Did we ever find Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction? Did Bush kill bin Laden?

The criticisms of Bush and Obama also differ in their intensity. Some people may have said they “hated” Bush or that “he’s not my president,” but they usually said it with a palm over their face. The operative emotion for many Bush critics was not hatred or fear, but embarrassment.

Bush was not an eloquent speaker. He said things like “strategery” and struggled to pronounce the word “nuclear.” He almost choked to death on a pretzel. Joe Biden may have a reputation for gaffs, but at least he hasn’t shot anyone in the face. How could anyone resist making jokes about that?

In contrast, the conservative critique of Obama has been deadly serious from the start. As soon as Obama was elected, the “Tea Party” rose to oppose him. They called him a threat to American democracy and, despite the fact that Obama had won a convincing two percent majority in the popular vote, felt that he had stolen the election. You would think that the election had been decided by the Supreme Court in lieu of a recount, or something…

While Bush got the benefit of the doubt at first, attacks on Obama started when he took office and grew to a level of hysteria very quickly. People may have questioned Bush’s public speaking abilities, but they did not question whether he was born in the United States. They may have compared Dick Cheney to Darth Vader, but no one compared him to Hitler.

Sideline hecklers are one thing, but what about the other players? Again, despite some outspoken criticism, Bush had it much easier than Obama. Democrats who disagreed with the invasion of Iraq still voted for it, while Congressional Republicans refused to even talk to Obama about issues like healthcare and the deficit until he made concessions.

In politics, where someone is always angry about something, it’s easy to assume that both sides are saying the same thing. However, not everything is relative. Sometimes, politicians make mistakes, and sometimes critics take things too far. After eight years of Bush jokes, conservatives were probably eager to attack Obama, but that doesn’t legitimize what they have done.

Disagreeing with Obama’s healthcare plan is not the same as being angry that we invaded a country for no reason, just as repeating “is our children learning?” is not the same as accusing the current president of being a foreign alien. Failing to recognize objective differences will only make it harder to return civility to politics, because it confuses those two situations.

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment