[Mb-civic] NYTimes.com Article: Babies and Bath Water

[michael at intrafi.com]

The article below from NYTimes.com 
has been sent to you by michael at intrafi.com.



/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight ------------\

 I HEART HUCKABEES - OPENING IN SELECT CITIES OCTOBER 1

 From David O. Russell, writer and director of THREE KINGS
 and FLIRTING WITH DISASTER comes an existential comedy
 starring Dustin Hoffman, Isabelle Hupert, Jude Law, Jason
 Schwartzman, Lily Tomlin, Mark Wahlberg and Naomi Watts.
 Watch the trailer now at:

 http://www.foxsearchlight.com/huckabees/index_nyt.html

\----------------------------------------------------------/


Babies and Bath Water

August 19, 2004
 By DAHLIA LITHWICK 



 

Maybe it's just that I'm having too many long talks with my
16-month-old these days, but I find myself sensitive to the
language of "daddies" and "dummies." This is the language
of toddlerhood; it's not how we should be framing a
national conversation about the president. 

It cannot have escaped anyone's notice that much of the
current Bush-bashing aims to infantilize him. The most
devastating segment in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11,"
for instance, features the president - just after he
learned of the second attack on the World Trade Center -
perched on a chair in a Florida classroom, looking glazed
and confused as he listens to a reading of "The Pet Goat."
Mr. Bush's aide might well have whispered the news to one
of the assembled students to greater effect, and the
implication is inescapable: for seven long minutes, the
president was Not a Man. 

A glance at the top 150 ads selected by MoveOn.org for its
recent political advertising contest, "Bush in 30 Seconds,"
similarly reveals the extent to which childishness is woven
into the current Bush-bashing. While children have long
been used in political ads to represent the future, many of
the MoveOn entries use them to satirize the actual
candidate. Several of the proposed anti-Bush commercials
use kids to condemn the president for unsophisticated
thinking, for an infantile worldview, for the fact that his
daddy purchased his every big break and for the fact that
he is desperately beholden to the wealthy and powerful
grown-ups surrounding him. The clear message is that Bush
is more a child than an adult. 

What's wrong with continuing efforts to characterize Mr.
Bush as a not-particularly-smart third grader? For one
thing, it plays to every stereotype of liberals as snotty
know-it-alls who think everyone in a red state is
anti-intellectual or simple-minded. It answers name-calling
from the right with name-calling from the left. 

These assertions also insult anyone who voted for Mr. Bush
in 2000. Rather than offering an argument for Mr. Kerry,
they merely disparage swing voters, who may be tempted to
defect to the Democrats over the war or the economy, by
sneering that they voted for a kid - and a dumb kid at
that. 

One of the most enduring memories from the Bush-Gore
debates in 2000 was Al Gore, all sighs and eye-rolls,
trapped in what must have felt like the middle-school
playground fight from hell instead of a presidential
debate. Everything about Mr. Gore's demeanor signaled that
he felt he was giving a punk kid a much-needed scolding.
Which missed the point: a lot of very smart people voted
for Mr. Bush in 2000 because to them, he represented a
return to honesty and morality. Dismissing him as a stupid
child, and these voters as stupid-children-by-association,
is no way to win them back. 

Furthermore, the campaign to cast Mr. Bush as a bumbling
child ignores the very grown-up machine that stands behind
him. Infantilizing the president shifts the focus away from
the Cheneys, Rumsfelds, Ashcrofts and Wolfowitzes. These
are the men who promised us short, easy wars and painless
little suspensions of the Geneva Conventions. These are the
men of the secret energy-policy meetings. They aren't a
bunch of rowdy juveniles. They represent one of the most
secretive, powerful administrations in recent memory.
Whether the president could outscore your kids on the SAT
is a distraction from that fact. 

Finally, there is a psychological consequence to labeling
the president an incurious frat boy. With each attempt to
cast Mr. Bush as a baby, we craft excuses for his childish
behaviors. If Mr. Bush misled us into a war in Iraq, it's
because children have trouble telling the truth. If Mr.
Bush sees the world in too-stark terms, it's because
nuanced reasoning isn't easy for children. With each
comparison between the president and a youngster, we subtly
lower national expectations and exonerate bad behavior. 

This election is not a choice between adults and children,
and it won't be won or lost with jokes about whether Laura
ties the president's shoes each morning before she points
him toward the Oval Office. Nothing is gained by offering
Mr. Bush even a metaphorical second childhood. Much may be
gained by offering our real children a safe and just first
one. 

Dahlia Lithwick, a senior editor at Slate, is a guest
columnist during August. Thomas L. Friedman is on leave
until October, writing a book. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/19/opinion/19lithwick.html?ex=1093938957&ei=1&en=1a3db4bd1a2aa3f5


---------------------------------

Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine
reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like!
Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy
now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:

http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?mode=SubscriptionT1&ExternalMediaCode=W24AF



HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters 
or other creative advertising opportunities with The 
New York Times on the Web, please contact
onlinesales at nytimes.com or visit our online media 
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to 
help at nytimes.com.  

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company