"The first thing that happens in a revolutionary era is the great figures of the old era get discredited."
So said Joshua Cooper Ramo, author of the compelling new book The Age of the Unthinkable: Why the New World Disorder Constantly Surprises Us And What We Can Do About It, on Fareed Zakaria's CNN show.
And, he might have added, so do the old era's once-sacred media tropes. I've been writing for a while about the media's reluctance to give up its reliance on looking at every issue through a right vs. left frame (and assuming the truth is to be found by splitting the difference).
But the country's shift away from right vs. left thinking and towards a right vs. wrong frame continues to gain momentum -- making it harder and harder to keep pushing the discredited meme.
The latest examples of the discrediting can be found in the current fights over gay marriage, health care, and the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.
Not that long ago, gay marriage was a dependable wedge issue Republicans could use to keep its base in line. But, in the wake of last week's Prop 8 ruling, that wedge is clearly splintering.
All you have to do is look at Dick Cheney who, speaking at the National Press Club today, said, "I think freedom means freedom for everyone." Cheney said he supports gay marriage as long as it's sanctioned at the state level -- a more progressive position than President Obama's current civil-unions-not-marriage stance.
And then we have the strange-bedfellows pairing of Ted Olson and David Boies. The Bush v. Gore adversaries teamed up last week, filing a federal lawsuit they hope will lead to a Supreme Court ruling allowing gays and lesbians to get married in every state.
"We wanted to send a message," Olson explained to Larry King, "to the American people and to the courts that this isn't a Republican or a Democrat issue. It's not a liberal or a conservative issue. The right of individuals committed to one another to live in a stable, committed, loving relationship is something that we should all respect and be for."
Interestingly, a number of traditionally progressive groups, including the ACLU, oppose the Olson/Boies approach, fearing the Supreme Court is not ready to rule in favor of gay marriage.
This line of thinking brought together two pundits not usually found on the same side of an issue, George Will and Paul Krugman. During this week's roundtable on Stephanopoulos, Will argued that the Olson/Boies suit was premature and that the democratic process, which is moving towards acceptance of gay marriage faster than anybody had anticipated, should be allowed to move forward without the courts getting involved -- to which Krugman responded: "I agree with George."
So while the timing of the lawyers' lawsuit may be open to debate, the value of the left/right conceit as a way to explain the battle lines in the gay marriage fight no longer is.
Same with health care. Even as many in the media are licking their chops in anticipation of a replay of the Clinton-era fight over health care (TV producers are cuing up the old Harry and Louise ads as we speak), the American people are making that take on the debate as antiquated as fax machines, Wite-Out, and 8-tracks.
A new CNN poll shows that a large majority of Americans -- 69 percent -- say they would favor greater government influence over the country's health care system if it would lower costs and provide coverage to more people. In addition, 62 percent of the public thinks the federal government should guarantee health care for all Americans (unless you want to argue that the American left has suddenly vastly expanded, it's time to give up the right vs. left way of discussing the health care debate).
Equally telling is the growing number of business executives who would love to see the government take on more of the burden of providing health care. Most are keeping their feelings on the down low, but, according to Benjamin Sasse, a former Assistant Secretary of HHS under Bush 43, in private "CEOs overwhelmingly want out of this [health insurance providing] business." And why wouldn't they, with insurance premiums charged to employers rising 119 percent over the last 10 years?
As for the Sotomayor nomination, so far the biggest fight hasn't been between the right and the left -- it's been between the right and the far right.
So while "old era" figures like Limbaugh, Gingrich, Inhofe, and Tancredo have been foaming at the mouth, the most noteworthy pushback to their over-the-top charges has come not from progressives but from GOP Senators John Cornyn and Jeff Sessions.
"Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials," said Cornyn, speaking of Limbaugh's and Gingrich's playing of the race card. "I just don't think it's appropriate and I certainly don't endorse it. I think it's wrong."
And Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, went on Meet the Press and praised Sotomayor as "smart," "capable," and having "a good record." "She's got the kind of background you would look for," he added, "almost an ideal mix of private practice, trial prosecution and circuit judge. That's strong in her favor."
Appearing alongside Sessions, Sen. Patrick Leahy illustrated why it's time to consign the left vs. right frame to the political graveyard -- especially when it comes to discussing Supreme Court picks:
I remember some of the liberal groups picketing my office, complaining I was going to vote for Justice Souter and that he would be against women's rights. Well, he's turned out to be, of course, a strong supporter of women's rights.
The seismic shifts in our society have rendered right vs. left thinking as archaic as a flat earth map. It's time for those in the media using it to navigate this revolutionary era to catch up with the public -- and the new realities.
A good example, we actually have TV shows debating whether or not torture is an acceptable practice. How did we even get here? 10 years ago if you said that a vote for Republicans would lead to this day, everyone would have said you were paranoid. So what is going on? People are getting paid to generate a lot of inane noise with the sole purpose to drive up the level of drama so more people will watch.
Stop watching their networks, stop buying their products and we can win back the discussion.
Of course by time that happens I'll be a millionaire from breeding flying pigs...
America is a country of similarities and differences. Every elected official has a choice whether to use our differences to divide us, or underscore our common groung to bring us together. The former choice is effective in keeping "the masses" down and allowing the corporate elite to own and run everything. The latter choice, however, is clearly more honorable and in keeping with true American ideals and principles.
America has overcome prejudice based upon religion, race and gender. This latest wave based upon sexual orientation must meet the same fate. Time to reject the manipulative divisive tactics of the extremists neocon wingers and allow the rich diversity that is America to enrich and empower us.
.
That said, I agree with you that it is shameful that the President isn't taking a progressive stand on these issues.
Certainly the right has whipped up their "base" with the spector of gays gone wild. And the left, including President Obama, seems to prefer to keep gay rights on a back burner in order to fund raise on the spector of the republican boogy man.
Last night I watched the NBC interview. President Obama said he was a strong supporter of gay rights.
REALLY? NAME ONE.
No action on DADT. No action on DOMA.
He also stated that the federal government should have no interest in the definition of marriage. That is contradicted by the SCOTUS ruling on Loving vs. Virginia. Certainly our biracial President is aware of that instance of federal involvement with marriage.
President Obama, the money makers, and the talking heads will continue the right vs. left on gay marriage. They have no vested interest in stopping it.
Caused more trouble than what it was worth.
I think most of us would agree that we have bigger fish to fry.
If he continues the way he has with this subject the Republicans will use it to beat him over the head with in 2012, when a consensus of Republicans agree with Gay Marriage.
I also believe that one religious group shouldn't dictate policy.
Also, Loving v Virginia and Zablocki and other SCOTUS cases show that marriage is indeed a federal issue.
Same-sex procreation is not a form of genetic engineering.
On the other hand, in-vitro fertilization, which is used by hetero couples all the time, could easily be used as genetic engineering - if the technology actually existed - which it doesn't.
But when a woman goes to a sperm bank to get some seed for her and her lesbian partner, no genetic engineering has taken place. When two men donate THEIR sperm and purchase an egg and/or womb for their own sperm, no genetic engineering has taken place. None. Just good ole fertilization.
Carol
I have been a strong activist for Latinos, for the homeless, for the deaf, for Russian Jewish immigrats, for abused women, for the cerebral palsied, for cancer victims, for the elderly, for Moslem immigrants and others. I have worked my ass off for over 40 years of adult life helping those groups and others - only to see many of them spout hatred against gays. So pardon me if I spend a few moments trying to work for a little justice for MY own people, the gays. I know MANY gay people who just like me have worked tirelessly for OTHERS, only to be spat upon by those groups we have spent our lives helping. Please consider this, Carol.
If we did, seniors couldn't be legally married.
We don't deny marriage to hetrosexuals who either can't have or don't want children.
We don't disolve marriages when the female partner goes through menopause while the male is still producing sperm.
Civil Marriage and same-sex procreation are two separate issues.
Justice does not come in parts. We either HAVE justice or we DON'T.
As for government's involvement in marriage The Supreme court has ruled "Marriage...has always been subject to the control of the legislature. That body prescribes the age at which parties may contract to marry, the procedure or form essential to constitute a marriage." (Smelt V Orange Co).
The UCC came out in opposition of Prop 8. If Prop 8 were defeated would that ALSO interfere with separation of Church and State. Not any more than if Prop 8 passed. The State has defined marriage as between "a man and a woman" not some religion.
All citizens of the United States are free to marry as defined by the laws of that state. Are you advocating that anyone should be allowed to marry anyone else without any restriction?
I didn't realize "procedure or form" referred to the gender of the participants. Seems an awfully broad interpretation. Likewise, I don't see how your claim that the defeat of prop 8 would also interfere with the separation of church and state. How does that work if the state happens to take the same stance as most churches? Prop 8 would then go against both the state's current position and the churches' position but it's not responsible for any collusion that may have existed beforehand. Would you say that the state has possibly adapted this position because of pressure from churches, or because of the personal religious convictions of lawmakers? (which I suspect it has) Besides, you forget that no state law is infallible. It still has to be compatible with the US Constitution, and that's what the battle in prop 8 is all about.
I am British and have lived for many years in Germany, Denmark and, of course, my native England. "Old Europe" is way ahead of the USA on this one.
In all of Europe most issues are debated on their merits, voted on based on what is best for the country, and, if non contentious, not subject to right Vs. left arguments. Of course that means that the issues which ARE political and right Vs. left issues, are debated all the more fiercely as there are valid arguments on both sides that you can either agree with or disagree with.
It is so much better than politics in the USA, which is to make everything and anything a right Vs. left issue. This means that almost nothing gets achieved.
Gay marriage is only one issue that divides "right" and "left" thinking, and for many people it's not a deal breaker. It may surprise you that many conservatives don't care one way or the other about it.
MOST people in fact are not as ideologically pure as you and your counterpart Mr. Limbaugh.
Everyone wants to decide WHAT GOD INTENDED. We don't trust God to handle our sins; instead, we opt to help Him by making determinations on what He intended. Like the Constitution, it's almost impossible to interpret the Bible...both written by man. IMHO, God provided options and gave us the ability to think and to choose. We always hear that "God didn't make any mistakes." If that's true, even if people are born homosexual, why would we consider it a mistake. I think God gave us options and the ability to choose according to our desires. Otherwise, he would have cut the cloth differently. We are not smarter than God and should stop trying to tell others what God meant.