It has been a fascinating week in US politics. The AIG bonuses issue has provided political junkies with much to talk about. Nobody in public life has come off looking particularly good.
As I noted in one of my earlier postings, it is much easier for folks to debate to death small, easily defined, issues than it is to focus on the biggies. So billions, no trillions, of dollars in spending bills can be passed in a matter of a few hours, without anyone even knowing what these bills contain, never mind anyone actually giving them anything resembling careful consideration.
As Charles Krauthammer (my favourite commentator by a mile) so astutely points out in his article "Bonfire of the Trivialities" posted today (March 20, 2009) on Real Clear Politics, the $165 million AIG bonuses being debated in Washington amount "to less than 1/18,500 of the $3.1 trillion federal budget". The bonuses are "less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the bailout money given to AIG alone", Krauthammer observes. By my reckoning, if a proportionate amount of time spent by politicians on dissing AIG and the bonus babies had been directed at debating the AIG bailout in the first place, they would have had to spend 1000 weeks considering it. The fact that they didn't spend a tiny fraction of that time on it and do not even seem to know what was in the bailout package confirms my point. The bigger the issue, the smaller the thinking.
To relieve the pressure of his job, President Obama decided to go on the Jay Leno Tonight Show. That was his first mistake. In my stodgy world, presidents, especially rookie ones who are still trying to figure out where all the bathrooms in the White House are, do not appear as guests on late night talk shows. Especially during a crisis. Leave that to the celebrities - it is their job to entertain the folks, not the president's.
If you make the first mistake and go on the show, do not make the second mistake. The second mistake is wisecracking. Talking without thinking. That is, of course, what President Obama did when he compared his weak bowling skills to those of the athletes in the "Special Olympics". Of course the Obama team quickly realized what a thoughtless gaffe this was and apologized for it after the taping session ended, even before the show was aired. (I give credit to the Tonight Show people for not protecting the President's image by editing it out. I wonder whether they were placed under any pressure to do so?)
I suspect that some will argue that President Obama meant no disrespect to disabled athletes by mocking their skills, that he was just being careless and casual as could be expected in the context of that type of show(hence my first rule for presidents), and that since he apologized, we should all just move on.
My problem, however, with the President's insult runs deeper than that. There are three types of persons. The first person thinks something is funny, even though it is offensive and demeaning of others, but yet still blurts it out. This person can be criticized for not only finding insulting comments about others to be humourous, but for not having the smarts to keep these "jokes" to himself. The second person is similar to the first, except that he has the foresight to know that the comment will make him look bad. Thus he is strategic enough to know that for public relations purposes, if for no other reason, the comment is better left unstated. Then there is the third type of person. That person would never have thought of the "joke" in the first place, because it would never have struck him as something which anyone would consider funny.
I leave it to you to decide into which category President Obama falls. As for the "joke of the week", it is not President Obama's wisecrack about the Special Olympics. It is President Obama for having made that remark.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"There are three types of persons." Really? Only three? No others? You've included absolutely every member of of humanity in those three categories? What about a fourth category: somebody who speaks before they think? That is obviously not the same as the second or third person you've described, nor however is it the same as the first person you've described, because your description suggests that the insult is foreseen before the joke is made.
ReplyDeleteI think that what Obama said was a dumb thing to say. To suggest however that it was an intentional insult just doesn't smack of reality.
By the way - as a fairly strident defender of free speech, what do you make of George Galloway's exclusion from Canada? http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090320/galloway_cda_090320/20090320?hub=Toronto
Dear "John Thomas Woodcock":
ReplyDeleteI am happy that we both agree that Obama's comment was dumb. I did not by the way suggest it was an "intentional insult". I expressed disappointment that President Obama comes across as the type of person who thinks put down jokes are funny. That person may not have the maturity, sensitivity, or intelligence to realize that the target group will be insulted by the "joke" Thus you could say he did not "intend" to insult anyone. (He is just too stupid to realize that he is).
As to Galloway's exclusion from Canada, I will make the same point I made in my earlier free speech postings, regarding Ahenakew and Williamson. Much as one may take some personal pleasure in seeing someone with whom you strongly disagree and whose speech you find repulsive being "slapped down", free speech must prevail. I am aware of the Galloway exclusion but not that familiar with Canadian visa and immigration laws which would allow the government to keep him out. Thus I would want to know more about what the law is, what its purpose is, and whether the Galloway case falls under it, before I assessed the Minister's deision in this case.
The third type of person may rarely offend, but they're also unlikely to be very entertaining. I'd choose number 1 as my cocktail party guest anyday.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Professor Klar-- the President's joke was insensitive. But it did seem (to me), as the first comment put it, a case of the mouth running ahead of the brain. Nonetheless, we should hold the President to a higher standard of decorum. He owed the Special Olympics an apology, and he duly apologized.
ReplyDeleteThis episode reminds me of 1998, when Senator John McCain publicly joked, "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father." Like Obama's current gaffe, I thought this was mildly funny, but in awful taste. As President Obama has, Senator McCain quickly apologized. Do you think the Senator also lacks the "maturity, sensitivity, or intelligence" you mentioned, or should we give them both the benefit of the doubt? May we hold the current heads of the GOP--Mssrs. Limbaugh and Steele-- to the same standard you're holding President Obama?
-Scott
Prof Klar:
ReplyDeleteActually, your original post does clearly portray person #1 (who I suspect you take Barack Obama to be) as intentionally insulting special olympians. You say for example that person #1 can be criticized for "finding insulting comments about others to be humourous". That assumes, surely, that the person realizes it is an insulting comment.
But if we are in fact agreed that it was an unintentional insult, then for heaven's sake, what's the big deal? Like I say it's a dumb thing to do and he shouldn't have done it. But at least he realized his error and he apologized. Where do you think a thoughtless comment ranks among presidential sins? I'm interested in knowing whether you think it is as bad as deceiving people into a war that has killed tens of thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands? Or maybe ignoring the signs of an impending attack on America? Can we at least agree that those are worse things than a thoughtless comment which was immediately recognized for what it was and apologized for?
Still, you and I are in full agreement on free speech. As you put it, "much as one may take some personal pleasure in seeing someone with whom you strongly disagree and whose speech you find repulsive being "slapped down", free speech must prevail." Can't agree more with that. Question: besides the obvious limitation of incitement to injure, are there any other limitations? If there are no limitations as to subject matter, what about other variables like volume?
Re Lewis': "As for the "joke of the week", it is not President Obama's wisecrack about the Special Olympics. It is President Obama for having made that remark."
ReplyDeleteEspecially given Obama's immediate apology -that's harsh, Lewis; and - coming from you - I am surprised. In my brief online aquaintance with you, you've struck me as being an exceptionally courteous individual, and very classy, as well.
On my web-sites, I have slammed public figures much harder than you ever will - without once suggesting that any of them are "a joke" as a person.