Lets look at a book review that touches a bit on perceptions and specifically, Harry Truman.
Now, I know it’s customary in D.C. journalism to understand Harry Truman the way Joe Klein does: as a symbol, as a lovable, plain-spoken guy from the “heartland” largely unconnected to actual politics (sort of the way the folkies regarded Woody Guthrie, come to think of it). So maybe it’s a little unfair of me to call attention to what Truman actually said. But Mr. Klein’s repetitive invocation of Truman, plus a little regional pride in the man, compelled me to look up the Turnip Day speech. Having listened to a recording of it, I think Mr. Klein is right in insisting that it be regarded as a model for Democratic candidates. I can also report that what Truman said in the speech is in almost every particular the precise opposite of what Joe Klein advises contemporary Democrats to say.But I guess the words of Harry Truman were "out of context", or maybe he didn't really say those thing because the truth is somewhere else I guess.. or god knows what.
Harry Truman was no centrist, and neither was he a radical. Still, listening to his ferocious ad-libs back in 1948 (which was, incidentally, not during the Great Depression), his audience could have had few doubts about what the Democratic Party stood for. Truman was explicit: “[T]he Democratic Party is the people’s party, and the Republican Party is the party of special interest, and it always has been and always will be.” He reveled in what Mr. Klein would call “class war,” calling a Republican tax cut a “rich man’s tax bill” that “helps the rich and sticks a knife into the back of the poor” and describing politics as a contest between the “common everyday man” and the “favored classes,” the “privileged few.” Even more astonishingly, Truman went on to talk policy in some detail, with special emphasis on Mr. Klein’s hated “jobs, health-care, and blah-blah-blah”: He called for the construction of public housing, an increase in the minimum wage, expansion of Social Security, a national health-care program and the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act. And this sort of high-octane oratory propelled Truman on to win the election in a historic upset.
Joe Klein is not the only one to moan about the polarized age in which we are supposedly living these days, with all the power having gravitated to “the extremes of both left and right,” to use the standard deploring formula. Everyone in pundit-land moans this way, and they can be fairly confident that their buddy the CNN host won’t contradict them when they so moan. But someone needs to rub their faces in the fact that, compared to today’s “polarized” Democratic Party, their lovable old Harry Truman sounds like a fire-breathing anarchist, defending positions so far to the left that we have forgotten that one of the two major parties ever held them. Maybe what ails us isn’t a deficit of authenticity or the pull of the poles; maybe it’s something Truman would have grasped in a Kansas City minute: the power of money, the push of the right. Maybe squishy centrism is the problem, not the solution. And maybe we could use a little more polarization of the Turnip Day variety.
Truth knows no context - it knows nothing other than what it is. Learn to understand the difference between interpretation and fact.
For the entire book review, with a lot of information on American politics, click here:
I am a mainstream Democrat.. not a "far left liberal".. I am a centrist. It's just the mood of this country has shifted so far to the right so as to redefine what "centrist" means for most people.. Unless they have some grasp of the facts.
3 comments:
So I say that you are using my quote (truth is in the middle somewhere) out of context - which it was - and now you are going to throw that into every post? Great, now you can use the out of context quote out of context too.
How about this: I'll admit that I was wrong in the way I phrased it. I believe I said something like the truth is always in the middle somewhere. What I should have more accurately said was I believe, in many cases, that when opposing viewpoints or interpretations come into conflict that there are usually valid claims to be made on both sides and that the most accurate representation is often not the position taken by either side, but somewhere in the middle. So I made three mistakes: I implied that it is always somewhere in the middle; I used the term truth which is not the correct term for what I was trying to describe, I should have said interpretation or something similar to that; and I apparently implied that it was applicable to every single quote, idea, etc... as opposed to a more holistic approach that I was intending. My bad again. So maybe we can put to rest the tongue-in-cheek lines about the out of context and truth is in the middle somewhere quotes.
I'll post more a little later as to the rest of your post here...
Well, that certainly does change the meaning entirely.
I still disagree that the interpretation of the facts will fall somewhere in the middle. Sometimes they do, but most of the things I write about have pretty clear cut conclusions, otherwise I wouldn't even be writing about them in the first place. That's not always the case - but most of the time it is.....
I agree that on a lot of the stuff you post, I agree with the interpretations you post. It's mostly the over-generalizations that I don't agree on and roll my eyes at. =)
As for the political landscape shifting to the right...hmmmm, I don't really know. I guess it could be the case, but since I am so young(ish) (is 25 youngish?), I can't really personally compare it to what it used to be. Not saying I am disagreeing, but I might need more than the word of one Truman biographer to really convince me one way or the other.
Post a Comment