Somewhere in journalistic heaven, CNN's Bernard Shaw is smiling.
Shaw had a stellar career as a reporter and anchor, but perhaps only his live broadcast of the bombing of Baghdad could top the drama of his first question of the 1988 presidential debate between Michael Dukakis and George H.W. Bush.
So last week, watching from his anchor desk on high, Shaw saw the leaders of three elite universities commit the cardinal sin in this era of the shock-and-awe soundbite. They parsed when they should have passed, or screamed, or said something outrageously extreme, which would have enraged only half the onlookers and viewers at home, not all of them. In responding as they did, they managed to pull off the impossible: they united nearly the entire American voting populace, left and right, across the spectrum.
Anything but lawyerese!
But no, these college leaders went right up to the edge of Bill Clinton's "meaning of is," and then one step beyond, to the land inhabited by very few, the terrain traversed by Michael Dukakis as the nation imagined the rape and brutal murder of his wife, when Shaw asked that question, and he didn't so much as bat one of his bountiful eyebrows.
“Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?”.
Shaw's query of Dukakis might have been the most cringeworthy question in the history of politics - and the easiest to answer - until last week.
We tend to trust straight talk, even when it borders on crazy, because Americans are sick of people parsing. If you listen to Dukakis's answer, it’s a perfectly fine explanation of why he opposed the death penalty, which actually was the essence of the question, but he missed the point. The point was that he should have been enraged by the mere suggestion of the rape and murder of his wife. He should have asked Shaw to step outside. Rhetorically.
Perhaps Dukakis was thrown by the fact that he was given two minutes to answer and had presumably been drilled on how to give the perfect response of that length to a question about criminal justice and the death penalty, to counter the racist Willie Horton ads that had been used against him.
He should have told Shaw, “you can have your two minutes back - now rephrase your question or I will refuse to answer it!” He could even have added, “It’s the same kind of lurid sensationalism my opponent has used in his racially inflammatory advertising - America has seen enough of that.”
But no, Dukakis parsed.
Like the trio of university presidents parsed.
Full disclosure: I know Dukakis personally and have always admired this Brookline boy-made-good. He came to my father's shiva - while he was governor. He rode the subway to work, while he was governor. He got us through the week-long Blizzard of '78 - without changing his sweater. He was always a regular guy who stood up for all the other regular guys. He was not born with a silver foot in his mouth. That was the other guy. He is the consummate mensch, and even married into a prominent Jewish family to prove it! I rooted like hell for him to beat Bush. And he and Kitty are still going strong. His affection for her has always been plain to see.
The question was so unfair.
And he messed it up by not going with his gut. He didn't provide a natural human response because he just wanted so much to tell the nation why the whole Willy Horton thing was a bunch of crap.
Does that make him an unfeeling sociopath?
And so, here comes the corollary to that question.
The Presidents Three really blew it with the genocide question. And unlike Dukakis, they were given many opportunities to correct themselves. The question was clear and the correct answer should have been that threats of genocide of any sort against any group are completely beyond the pale. They could have thrown in an expletive or two and everyone would have understood. They should have used the word "evil." They should have demonstrated some moral clarity. People like the occasional exclamation these days, the kind they deleted from the Nixon tape transcripts in more tranquil times. Yes, comparatively civil Nixon, we hardly knew ye.
Like Dukakis, the Presidents seemed to take their eye off the ball, distracted not by the specter of a Lee Atwater-conjured Black parolee stalking the countryside, but a Hamas supporter on their campuses calling for an "Intifida" or using the clearly antisemitic line, "From the River to the Sea."
Clearly antisemitic, but possibly not to the presidents. And in their minds they were protecting that free speech - but that was not Stefanik's question. The question was about crying "Genocide" in a crowded theater, against Jews. It was Hate Crime 101. I'm conjecturing that they were steeling themselves for a question about the definition of antisemitism and how it relates to Zionism, or some such, but that question wasn't necessary, because they had just committed one of the most notorious parses in history.
Really? Genocide? Against Jews? In context?
It all makes me so furious. But only a little less furious at Elise Stefanik. She may have exposed the corrosive tone-deafness of these leaders, and maybe even latent, systemic antisemitism, but I don't think it proves that they or their campuses are antisemitic. We've been awakened (a new thing to be woke about?) to some real dangers, no doubt.
But Stefanik also gratuitously and causally used the hypothetical devastation of my people as a part of cheap political trap to score ideological and partisan points. Next time, Elise, please pick on someone else's people when you want to raise a few bucks. The more people talk openly about killing Jews, the more it becomes an accepted part of the public discourse. Certain words, like "genocide" and "Holocaust," should never be cheapened.
Keep your paws off of my people, Elise, And that goes for anyone who refuses to give full condemnation to far-right Christian nationalists who shoot up synagogues, along with university presidents who watch masked defenders of genocide down below while they remain safely ensconced in their ivory towers. While everyone has been piling on the tone-deaf parsers from Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, we should ask a few questions about the arsonists too, those on the campuses, online and in Congress.
I'd like to see someone elevate the conversation with civility for once. A politician was asked recently why he continues to work in the arena that has become such a cesspool. He said, “What’s the alternative? If you want to live a meaningful life. We do it because we love it and we think we can make a difference. There’s no magic here.” That politician was Michael Dukakis, who just turned 90 last month.
Budding journalists everywhere can be good and proud of Bernard Shaw's viral gotcha moment. Elise Stefanik can give herself a bunch of back slaps too. As for me, to the end, I'll remain good and proud of Michael S. Dukakis, a decent man, whose only sin is that he parsed.
Click to share this on Substack | 
No comments:
Post a Comment