100 facts and 1 opinion

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

This is where you lose me, Cool Hand. What does it mean to say you don't approve of the practice but you don't fault the administration for engaging in it? Why would you not fault someone for engaging in a practice you disapprove of?

I wrote poorly. Sorry. I think you're right that there is an inconsistency in what I said. It might even be irreconcilable.

Actually, after thinking about it, I think I can make a distinction, but I didn't have this in mind at the time I wrote that. It might be too fine a distinction for your taste. This is just my post hoc rationalization, so don't read too much into it.

If I could turn back the hands of time, I would undo whatever occurred that laid the foundations for spin to become the widespread practice that it is in American politics. Keep in mind that it isn't limited to the White House. Executives at state and local levels use spin, as do legislators in Congress, states, and municipalities. I'm sure government officials in other countries engage in it too.

I don't approve of being less than candid with those to whom one is accountable. Nevertheless, today spinning seems to be an almost necessary practice in order to gain or keep a high profile office. The forces which sustain it often create a practical dilemma for office holders between adhering to strict principles and maintaining political viability.

President Carter was probably the most recent truly principled American President. He was credible and sincere, in my opinion. Carter was and is an outstanding diplomat. He did not come across as a strong leader, however, especially at re-election time. Carter happened to be in office when two very significant crises took place that hurt his image as a leader, despite neither being his fault. First, a group of thousands of Iranian students, with Ayatollah Khomeini's support, seized and held dozens of American hostages in Tehran in 1979. The hostages were still being held at the time Carter came up for re-election in November 1980. President Carter also happened to hold the office during a time of bizarre economic circumstances in which both inflation and unemployment were high. Inflation was in the double digits and rising at the time of the 1980 election when Reagan defeated him. It was surely a prominent factor in Carter's defeat.

From a purely political perspective, not a principled one, Carter could have used some good spin doctors in 1980. They might have boosted his chances for re-election.

Unfortunately, in our present era of hyperscrutiny by the press, and loud, partisan criticism by the opposition party, politicians at the highest levels, including executives and legislators, find themselves having to explain and rationalize so many of the decisions they make. Many of those decisions are going to be unpopular. Explaining them and rationalizing them gets bogged down in rhetoric and spin so that they ostensibly become more palatable to the public. In order to be re-elected, or to allow for one's political allies to remain electable, politicians put their best feet forward and keep the others hidden from public view.

Elected and appointed offices, not just the politicians themselves, surely lose credibility in the process. The press and the electorate become more jaded and more cynical. All of us lose in the process. It seems the price to pay for governing and for electing officials under the present circumstances.

That's why I don't fault this administration for engaging in spin. It's just trying to remain politically viable. For that matter, I don't fault the previous administrations for doing it either.

Spinning remains unseemly and unprincipled to me, despite its practical utility or even arguable necessity. From a principled perspective I don't approve of the spinning, but I recognize the practical utility of doing it to remain in office.

I suppose I'm tacitly and weakly approving of a form of political pragmatism, even though it feels icky, and I'm not sure I would do it if I held office.

Does that make sense?

Cool Hand

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Spinning remains unseemly and unprincipled to me, despite its practical utility or even arguable necessity. From a principled perspective I don't approve of the spinning, but I recognize the practical utility of doing it to remain in office.

I suppose I'm tacitly and weakly approving of a form of political pragmatism, even though it feels icky, and I'm not sure I would do it if I held office.

Does that make sense?

That's not a bad post hoc rationalization.

Honestly that makes a lot of sense to me, and it's along the lines of what I meant early in this thread when I said if Bush Co. is willing to lie, cheat and steal to win this election then I accept the fact that Kerry Co. will have to respond in kind or take the moral highground to campaign failure.

And to be clear, by "lie, cheat and steal" I was making a hyperbolic reference to spinning campaign rhetoric not speaking about the last election or in fact anything specific at all. Like you I feel icky endorsing (even tacitly and weakly) dishonesty, but also like you I'm fairly sure there's no realistic way around it. At least none that I'm capable of figuring out.