Masters of the Sublime

As absolutists, the administration insists that only one view is possible. As propogandists, they insist that there are always at least two sides to every question. They employ this cynical assertion in their dealings with the media, a credulous media held captive to false "standards" of what constitutes "fair" journalistic practices.

This morning on NPR, Lewis Lapham was being interviewed by Steve Inskeep. Lapham, 70, is leaving Harper's Magazine to start a new magazine on history. Asked why, he cited Cicero who said "Those who do not know the history of what has come before are like children." Lapham was critical of the Bush administration, saying that he'd never been witness to such an anti-democratic administration in all his life.

Inskeep, apparently distressed that Lapham is so angry at what's going on in the U.S. under the current regime, felt compelled to present a counter to Lapham's views, quoting Kurt Andersen (the young man's Charlie Rose), who wrote something to the effect that Lapham's views have become stiff and doctrinaire. Then he questioned Lapham about whether he had ever published anything by neo-cons. This sounded like an attempt at questioning Lapham's credentials for "fair and balanced" journalism.

What's clear in the interview is that Inskeep, so conditioned by the idea of journalistic "balance," can't see how he and his brother and sister journalists have been duped by the neo-cons pundit class. There is no "on the other hand" possible when Bush gives the NSA the go-ahead to spy on the American people without a warrant. Only condemnation and outrage are possible. There is no "other hand" possible with cooked-up intelligence on Iraq's nuclear weapons. (Although Bush gamely offered one the other day: the intelligence was wrong, but it the invasion of Iraq was still necessary anyway.

Lapham during the interview offers an image of America that sits under a bubble, a bubble that reflects back only the ideas of the conservative punditry and the administration. He suggests that US media doesn't attempt to get outside the bubble, that no other perspectives exist. Inskeep is incredulous at this characterization, which, to my mind, just goes to show how he is a captive of the bubble.

Memory is a political act. Cicero knew that. Men like Lapham know that. Both of them know that without history, knowledge, understanding, outrage and resistance can be held in check. As propogandists, the Bush administration insists on both "sides" being presented. Rarely, if ever is the "side" of history presented, however. When it is, the history quoted by the Bush administration is the Ronald Reagan version of history where America and democracy triumph over evil. The media prefers argumentation devoid of history, name-calling, contradiction, or if history is to be included, they accept the prevailing view that history tells us that democracy is inevitable.

With no point of comparison, historical or otherwise, outside of the bubble, the Bush cabal has been able to claim without fear of contradiction (at least until relatively recently) that they are ushering in a new democratic sublime, the best of all possible worlds with both hands. "Liberals" on the other hand are accused, like they were during Vietnam, of tying one of these hands of the administration behind the back.

Incidentally, Lapham told Inskeep he had not published an article by a neo-con in a long time because, in his view, the neo-con clique has not produced anything of note in quite some time. Indeed, it is the neo-cons who have become doctrinally-driven, who, now that they have assumed power, can no longer conceive of an other hand to their smug, morally bankrupt ideology.