The Morning After: Obama (and Jindal), Between the Lines

If and when I get elected President, during my first speech to Congress I'm going to put an end to the ridiculous "stand-up, sit-down" absurdity. Honestly, at this point it's gone beyond parody -- everyone should just sit except at the entrance and the end.
.
As for the speech, I thought it was very good. I'm currently reading Jonathan Alter's study of FDR's Hundred Days ("The Defining Moment"), and the parallels are striking -- Obama, like FDR, talking up the dire nature of the nation's economic challenges before taking office, and then, once in office, being relatively optimistic about our ability to tackle them and affect change.
.
In other television news, "Leverage" finished its first season on TNT with a very satisfying conclusion (but one I thought would have been better had the writers made the near failure in the first episode more of a "set-up" for a larger con against Blackpool). It has seriously been one of the most pleasant surprises of the new season.

I found myself wondering if Jindal really thought that people thought the real problem with Katrina was too much government intervention. And I've seen this thing going on where people are comparing Jindal to Kenneth from 30 Rock, but seriously, I think that is an insult to Kenneth because Kenneth seems to have some smarts about him.

And I agree with Chaddog about Leverage. It was a very pleasant addition to my TV viewing this year.

Unfortunately, Tuesdays are my busy night of the week (which is why I don't watch Fringe), but I had mentioned it before the speech to friends: this is exactly the kind of situation where Obama is the right man for the job. (I still disagree that the stimulus plan was the best option, but what's done is done) What he needed to do was get up there, tell us to not freak out, and that it's gonna take time.
`
@Chad - I totally agree. My favorite thing about presidential speeches is the hilarity of the stand up-sit down-fight-fight-fight aspect of it. But when I actually want to listen to the president speak, it's really annoying.

But bipartisanship ends after the first cable-news commercial break, and the post-speech commentary quickly divided into partisan camps.
_
the "post-speech commentary" didn't "quickly divide" -- the people who run cable news set up a situation that would transmit the "partisan division" message. When you seek out partisans to provide commentary, what you get is partisan commentary.
_
and yeah, I know this is obvious, but the point here is how the media is unwilling to let go of their "partisan" narratives in which every issue is reduced to two viewpoints that are represented as "the partisan divide." And as a media critic, its your job to point out how our discourse is being manipulated, rather than give the impression that there is some deux ex machina imperative that requires reductivist and dichotomous rhetoric.

Oh Bobby. Bobby, Bobby, Bobby. My Louisiana heritage is tingling. On the one hand, hoorah, Louisiana's on TV, and it's (mostly) not an expose on hurricanes, eroding wetlands, or corruption. On the other hand, that dead-eyed smile, that faux bonhomie, that Horatio Algers message! And did he REALLY use Katrina to support his Republican message against big government? REALLY?? Isn't Katrina more a lesson against BAD government? You know, the kind run by REPUBLICANS for the last eight years? And yeah, I know he kind of addressed that, but his "We screwed up; but trust us now!" message didn't quite work for me.
~
Some news pundit or another was talking about how the Republicans have to move far right to find constituents not currently being appealed to by Obama. But that same pundit didn't feel the need to talk about the fundamental disconnect at work there, in which politics becomes more about vote chasing than about successful governance. And yeah, I know that's not a new complaint -- but it bothers me that it now goes without saying.
~
Oh yeah, and isn't the PRESIDENT technically supra-party? Why does there have to be a minority party rebuttal to a president's speech? For better or worse, the president is EVERYBODY'S leader, right? I mean, I don't mind there being a counter-argument (even a glassy, crappy one), of course, but the partisan terms really bother me. For God's sake, democracy might REQUIRE parties, but the parties shouldn't come FIRST!
~
I feel better now.

It's interesting to wonder: why do the postmortem interviews need to be with political figures at all? We pretty much know what Barbara Boxer and Eric Cantor are going to say (which is why they are there). What about replacing them with economists, business and union leaders, etc.--anyone who does not have an invisible party leader over their shoulder holding them to the talking points?
_
the format of cable news is "talking point" dependent, and any economist, business or union leader who actually tried to discuss issues rather than reduce them to "talking points" is useless to the networks.
_
moreover, the problem isn't just the way in which the networks re-inforce the "partisanship" message, its their overall reductivists, dichotomous formatting of discussion. ("manichean" seem inapt, because its more than just dualism, but dualism with values assigned; i.e. good v evil. The networks present two opposing sides as if they were equal in value, regardless of who makes rational or moral sense.) In other words, because the networks are more about controversy than information, it would be a businessman vs an union leader, a Keysian economist vs a supply sider, etc.
_
The "right" format is the one that you can frequently find on PBS Newshour -- serial interviews on a specific topic that are conducted to elicit information from specific viewpoints. Of course, that lacks the dynamism that cable news requires to maintain its audience -- which is why you don't see it. (Not that PBS is perfect -- it tends to adhere to the same convential wisdom standards in terms of the limits of debate, but in terms of the format, its far superior.) The PBS format is less concerned with the interviewees opinions than the basis for those opinions -- all the cable networks care about is the opinions themselves; whether there is a rational basis for them is irrelevant.

[...] in behaving constructively. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a smart fellow if not yet a wise one, gave the Republican response to Obama’s speech and quickly became the poster boy for his party’s vacuity and [...]