Chillul Tefila Bifarhesia, as well as halachicly challenged verbiage and dress, are external manifestations of a critical lack of personal yiras shomayim which has lethal consequences.
Beginning with Kennedy and Nixon in 1960, major party nominations and presidential election campaigns have increasingly been subjected to forms of circus television we carelessly label “debates.”
With rough equality for all contestants regardless of their prospects, these productions have come to rival fund-raising in their importance to the candidates. Furnishing a free forum for pandering, televised debates can make or (more likely) break candidacies.
Examined from another vantage point, it’s fairly clear that the public interest to be served – civic education – has inevitably been compromised by television acting as its promotional medium. In the process (as Marshall McLuhan taught us would happen) the presentations have taken on the unmistakable traits of what television does best: quiz shows and sporting events. For proof, simply recall the serial face-offs of both political parties in 2008, or watch this cycle’s wrestling matches among Republicans.
Not surprisingly, given that television’s core is video, appearance was first to gain influence over discourse, and did so at the outset. What then-Vice President Nixon had to say about Quemoy and Matsu mattered little (and supposedly only to radio listeners) while his perspiring upper lip “lost” to then-Senator Kennedy.
Three decades and two wars later, the camera caught the first President Bush checking his wristwatch, unaware that viewers’ response to his apparent indifference would be “your time is up.”
The roots of what we have now can be seen in reruns of “What’s My Line?” “I’ve Got A Secret,” “Jeopardy!” and in every post-game sports analysis program. With instant polling through Internet voting and texting, we now even have scorecards! No need to follow the flow of campaign contributions to gauge the winners and losers.
In effect, the debates have been absorbed by the culture of our television. Thus, 30-second commercials have trained us to accept sound bites for thoughtfulness, and the competitive elements of sport (especially football) have transformed argument into “gotcha” politics. For good and ill, that’s mostly what we have. You needn’t be a couch potato to be comfortable with what television delivers.
Who can say that this process is better or worse than the back door deals that brought us (albeit indirectly) a President Truman? Inarguably, television’s sponsorship of debates, together with its saturation coverage of the primaries, has (but for the campaign funds component) opened our election systems for 24/7 viewing. It does so, however, on its terms – and those terms often distort electoral politics. Take the matter of what has come to be labeled “flip-flopping.”
Under many circumstances, flip-flopping should be deemed a virtue. In respectable company it consists of revising your judgment after reconsidering an issue. Call it changing your mind.
Rather than promoting an understanding of issues, televised debates have conditioned us to reject an open mind by promoting the gotcha moments of the format; and the best of those are when the suspect is accused of flip-flopping and the pundits press the case ad nauseam.
Just consider a few flip-flops of no small consequence: Jefferson stretching the Constitution with the Louisiana purchase; Wilson entering World War I despite his contrary promise; Nixon opening China after decades searching for who “lost” it. The benefits of those flips cannot seriously be disputed.
Yet hardly anything can doom a candidate more surely than being called a flip-flopper. A philanderer or alcoholic can be rehabilitated through counseling or rehab but there’s no forgiveness or reform for a flip-flopper exposed on live television.
To the candidate, it’s become a fault worse than indecision. When confronted, he or she can only retreat into alibis concocted of misunderstandings, or the missing context, or some other nonsense such as John Kerry’s explanation that he voted no before voting yes (or the other way around) about the Iraq war.
About the Author: Arnold Mazur is a retired attorney and business executive who, defying the Arab boycott office, was first to establish in Israel a subsidiary of a major U.S. software company.
You must log in to post a comment.
France 2 and Enderlin must have their press accreditation revoked and be thrown out of Israel.
Slaughter is a routine, widespread practice among many Moslem families.
parently an affront to J Street’s worldview, the focus of which appears to be the creation of a Palestinian State, whether or not that will bring peace.
My mother, the eldest daughter of Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky, zt”l, was niftar last month at the age of 92. She took her last breath in her home in Efrat, Israel, next door to the shul that was my father’s for 24 years before his passing in 2007.
It comes down to his being famous.
Following the Boston Marathon bombing, one crucial point will likely remain overlooked. The most loathsome aspect of this or any other terror bombing attack on civilians will always lie in the inexpressibility of physical pain. While all decent people will abhor the idea of bombs expressly directed at the innocent, whether here or in other countries, none will ever be able to process the very deepest horrors of what has been inflicted.
It’s only natural to see increasing evidence of Jerusalem’s glorious Jewish past being unearthed, quite literally, under modern Israeli sovereignty. The new archaeological finds are also very timely – as the Arab onslaught attempting to detach Jerusalem from its Jewish roots gains steam, the facts on the ground, or “under” the ground, show quite otherwise.
The Talmud (Berachot 26b) says, “tefillot avot tiknum” – “prayer was established by the avot.” The Talmud then uses the following verse (Bereshit 19:27) to prove how Avraham established prayer: “Vayaskem Avraham baboker el hamakom asher amad sham et pnei Hashem” – “And Avraham got up early in the morning to the place where he had stood before God.”
Nearly 13 years ago, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak journeyed to Camp David to end the conflict with the Palestinians. With the approval of President Clinton, he offered Yasir Arafat an independent Palestinian state in almost all of the West Bank, Gaza and in part of Jerusalem. Arafat said no.
The news that the Internal Revenue Service unfairly targeted conservative groups has brought renewed spotlight on a 2010 lawsuit filed by the pro-Israel group Z Street, which alleges it was also singled out by the IRS when applying for tax-exempt status.
In an editorial last week (“Circling the Wagons”) we noted the efforts by the administration and its supporters to dismiss allegations that the government’s spin on the Benghazi attack was designed to shield the president and that the IRS was improperly used to stifle opposition to Mr. Obama’s reelection.
As the controversies besetting the Obama administration continue to grow in number and intensity, the prospect that President Obama would seriously consider military action against Iran, should that country continue its drive to become a nuclear power, becomes more and more remote. So we welcome the current enhancement of sanctions against Iran on the federal and New York State levels.
To his parents’ friends, he was “Mrs. Greenberg’s disgrace,” but to sports fans he is one of the greatest – if not the greatest – Jewish baseball players of all time. Long before Sandy Koufax, Hank Greenberg excited Jewish sports fans with his prowess on the baseball diamond.
It was the late Abba Eban who famously said that “the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” In his time that was for the most part true, and it arguably worked for Israel’s benefit, particularly when Israel found itself in a tight diplomatic squeeze.
Now that we’ve suffered, yet again, through the annual United Nations circus, has it occurred to anyone (other than New York City police officers) to question why we continue to tolerate the hypocrisy and waste of it all?
Small things make a difference. For example, as an old folk tale has it, a pebble in your shoe can cause more pain than a rock in your pocket.
Opponents of President Obama do not lack for reasons to criticize him or his administration. Not justifiably among them, however, would be the contention that Obama the candidate had misled the country regarding his intentions.
We need to learn from history. Once upon a time (nearly forty years but not so long ago, really) American foreign policy was being stymied, on every issue and continent, by a duplicitous Soviet Union, Confounded by the Vietnam War, President Richard Nixon and his foreign policy czar, Henry Kissinger, faced not so much crises that threatened America as murky messes that wouldn’t yield to unilateral resolution. Soviet partnership was needed but at best absent.
Former president Jimmy Carter’s controversial twining of Israel and the “apartheid” epithet created quite the fuss, as has the Biden construction affair and its aftermath of bloodying the Israeli nose. Unsurprisingly, if leaky reports are true, lurking in the background of both stories is the second-rate theorist Zbigniew Brzezinski, still hoping somehow to overcome the frustration of not being Henry Kissinger.
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/flip-flop-to-victory/2011/11/12/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online:
No related posts.