Lawrence Weschler

How “The West Wing” gets the vote out

Convergence of the week: Jim Lehrer, Archer Daniels Midland, Bush and Gore try to center-tain you.

  • more
    • All Share Services

“In a telephone interview today from St. Louis, where the final debate will take place on Tuesday night, Mr. [Jim] Lehrer said his critics were missing the point. His role, he said, is to foster give-and-take, and not become a star attraction. ‘If somebody wants to be entertained, they ought to go to the circus,’ Mr. Lehrer said. ‘They ought to go to the movies. Or they ought to go to the ballgame. I didn’t sign on to entertain people for 90 minutes three times. These have been tremendous exercises for democracy.’ — from ‘Critics Accuse Moderator of Letting Debate Wander,’ by Richard L. Berke.

“[Thomas] Schlamme ['West Wing' director] … put it another way. ‘If you do a show about politics, people have to represent a certain political allegiance,’ he said. ‘If you do a show about cops, they have to shoot a gun; or a show about doctors, they have to save lives. You’ve got to be specific here. If you play it safe, there’s not a chance the show would be successful.’ — from “‘The West Wing’: Leader of the Free World (Free TV, That Is),” by Bernard Weinraub.”

Why has the quality of this particular election’s political discourse become so stupefyingly, so strangulatingly, dull? The convergent quotes above, drawn from Tuesday’s New York Times, provide one point of access. The “centrist” media, as epitomized by Lehrer (Archer Daniels Midland’s anchor to the world), insists on a bipartisan equivalence: If the candidates themselves won’t bring up the dramatic issues, they ask disingenuously, how can we be expected to? The scandal about George W. Bush’s complete failure to respond to the handwritten confession of a Texas convict, utterly exonerating two other lifers goes unreported or at best drifts to the back pages, because the candidates themselves refuse either to echo, or, conversely, to address the charge.

Of course, to begin with, this characterization of the state of play elides the fact that the bipartisan debate commission (a commission sponsored by the two major parties, themselves already as in hoc to ADM and their like as is Lehrer) has arbitrarily limited the debate to its own two candidates, for example, by leaving out Ralph Nader (despite massive polling results supporting his inclusion in the debates), who one can be sure would have raised such issues.

But why do the candidates themselves refuse to highlight their differences, on, for instance gun control, abortion, the Supreme Court and so forth, in any vivid or meaningful way? Here, the answer lies, in part, in the fact that by this point in the campaign they are only trawling for the undecided, the 10 percent of “those likely to vote” who have yet to make up their minds. These are the only folks allowed into the focus groups where all the late strategy and rhetoric get honed. Hence, by all means, say nothing that might upset those people! Steadfastly avoid any hint of that dread disease, partisanship! Now, anyone who still hasn’t made up his mind whom to vote for by this stage is either an idiot (hence the second-grade reading level of most late-phase rhetoric) or more likely, so incapable of deciding which candidate’s centrist exertions most appall or disgust them that they aren’t going to vote at all.

Imagine, for a moment, an alternative model in which the two candidates accentuated their differences, playing to their bases and relying on the resultingly vigorous political discourse and enthusiasms to cleave that vaunted middle (letting the supporters of one side or the other in the body politic try to convince their as-yet undecided co-workers or neighbors).

Impossible? Probably. Because the real reason Al Gore and Bush come off as so numbingly similar on issues is because they, like Lehrer, all are in the pocket of corporate interest such as ADM.

Which raises the only remaining question: How does “The West Wing” get away with it?

The ABCs of Balkan nationalism

Do the recent elections in Yugoslavia and Croatia mark a shift away from the psychology that led the region into conflict?

  • more
    • All Share Services

Several years ago, while reporting in Belgrade, I happened to have a conversation with a Serb oppositionist journalist, of whom there were still dismayingly few, and she recalled for me her own experience of the late 1980s and early 1990s in Yugoslavia. For some reason, she said — and she couldn’t really explain why — she hadn’t at the time succumbed to the ex-communist leader Slobodan Milosevic’s raging propaganda campaign to recast himself as the leader of an urgent Serbian nationalist revival.

(At the time, her bewilderment reminded me of that of an old Danish woman with whom I also once happened to have a conversation — a veteran, years earlier during the Nazi times, of her country’s famously successful effort to rescue its Jews. When I asked her why little Denmark, couched there amid such hotbeds of anti-Semitism as Germany and Poland, had itself never seemed to succumb, she at first gazed upon me authentically baffled and noncomprehending. “What kind of question is that?” she finally responded, “Why did we never succumb? I mean, isn’t the only valid question why Germany and Poland ever did?” In so saying, of course, she’d answered my original question perfectly.)

Anyway, my Serbian journalist friend continued, recalling those eerie days in the late 1980s, she’d kept herself almost studiously oblivious to the swelling surge of nationalist hysteria sweeping over her fellow countrymen in the Serbian capital — the swelling rallies, the thronged marches, the midnight masses of lusty, near-Messianic patriotism.

“It was all so stupid, so beneath contempt,” she said, “this transparent gambit of Milosevic’s to cast himself as some kind of savior of the Serbs, when of course he’d never been the slightest kind of nationalist before. The response he managed to evoke was mystifying, to be sure, but really, it was just too stupid to spend time thinking about. Surely it was going to pass, and in the meantime I felt justified in ignoring it.”

She paused. “Then, one night,” she recalled, “I was watching the evening news, and they had footage out of Zagreb, the Croatian capital — a huge nationalist rally there, a shouting throng chanting these blood-curdling Croatian nationalist slogans — and I remember thinking, all at once, ‘Oh my God, we’re driving them crazy!‘ And suddenly I saw it all clearly, how it wasn’t just going to pass. From one moment to the next that evening, I saw all the horrors that were going to come: war with Croatia, followed by war in Bosnia, followed by war for Kosovo, until finally it would all end, most ghastly and gruesome of all, in a civil war among the Serbs themselves. And so far, alas, we’re right on schedule.”

A few weeks later, while traveling in Bosnia, I happened to be reading an account of flocking behavior in birds, specifically about a computer scientist who used to gaze out over the cemetery grounds outside his office at a group of blackbirds that tended to congregate there. He’d been struck by the way the group seemed to consist, say, of 100 individuals, each with its own little brain, but then of a 101st presence as well, which was the flock as a whole. The flock seemed to have a mind of its own, one that almost seemed to control the brains of all its members. How did they all know to rise and swoop and veer like that, as if as one?

This fellow decided to try to model flocking behavior on his computer, that is to establish, say, 100 points on a screen, each one animated by a simple algorithm or set of rules (but simple rules: so easy that even a bird brain could grasp them, such that if all 100 such points began moving about in relation to one another in keeping with those rules, as a group they’d end up replicating the elegant, consistent and seemingly auto-volitional patterns of a flock. And, indeed, he succeeded in doing so. He boiled it all down to three easy injunctions — I forget the particulars (something along the lines of “If another point comes within distance x to your right, turn left,” and so forth) — and the resultant screen spectacle was indeed uncannily flock-like.

This in turn set me to thinking about whether the bloody surges of Balkan (and other) nationalism might not be similarly framed, and after a while, I did manage to get things down to a simple three-step progression, to wit: A) Fear (of the other) trumps hope; B) it apes hate, which in turn; C) provokes more fear (in this case in the other, who now launches into his own A-B-C progression). I subsequently tried that formulation out on that Belgrade friend of mine, and she managed to distill things even further, citing an ancient Persian proverb: “Fear those who fear you.”

The point of all this is that the same mass psychology that animated the descent toward war in the Balkans in the late 1980s continued to predominate all through the 1990s, even after the hostilities themselves had seemingly petered out: Corrupt gangland-style leaders on all sides were able to intone how if you think you had cause to fear/hate the other before this war, just think of all the cause you have now. At which point, axiomatically, the life-and-death necessity of falling behind those same leaders was meant to become self-evident.

And up until this year, it had continued to do so. But in what may be the single most heartening development in the region so far in the brief new millennium, voters in parliamentary elections in Croatia last January upended that psychology, decisively turning out the corrupt, inept and blood-curdlingly nationalistic HDZ (Croation Democratic Committee) party of the late demagogue Franjo Tudjman that had ruled the country since its inception. (Maybe the fear/hope polarities were at last in the process of reversing, such that hope, for instance, for a greater Croatia was finally getting trumped by fear of being left utterly behind in the wider region’s slow reintegration into greater Europe.)

It was hard, at any rate, to exaggerate the hopeful implications of that vote. Suffice it to say that in a beneficent obverse of the cascading developments at the beginning of the last decade, Zagreb suddenly seemed on the verge of driving the rest of the region sane, a prospect that has now been further reinforced by developments in Belgrade over the past several weeks (where the same sort of fear/hope polarities reversal may also at last have begun to come into play).

Maybe, maybe. On the other hand, my Belgrade journalist friend’s comments from several years ago continue to haunt me as well, and the question for the coming weeks remains whether that longed-for transition will be possible without one final wrenching civil war among the Serbs themselves.

Continue Reading Close

Relying on God

Convergence of the week: The words of vice-presidential pick Joseph Lieberman and Gamil Batouti, co-pilot of EgyptAir Flight 990.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Much was made of the fact, last week, that, as Maureen Dowd pointed out in her New York Times column the next day, Sen. Joseph Lieberman managed to mention “God 13 times in 90 seconds” in his Nashville debut as Al Gore’s vice presidential pick. To wit, according to the official transcript:

Dear friends, I am so full of gratitude at this moment. I ask you to allow me to let the spirit move me, as it does, to remember the words from Chronicles, which are to give thanks to God, to give thanks to God and declare his name and make his acts known to the people; to be glad of spirit; to sing to God and make music to God, and most of all, to give glory and gratitude to God from whom all blessings truly do flow.

Dear Lord, maker of all miracles, I thank you for bringing me to this extraordinary moment in my life.

And Al Gore, I thank you for making this miracle possible for me and breaking this barrier for the rest of America forever. God bless you and thank you …

… and so forth.

But what was one to make of the disconcerting convergence, a few days later, arising from the release by the National Transportation Safety Board of the transcript of cockpit conversations aboard the tragically ill-fated Egypt Air Flight 990 last October, on which, according to the Times, the plane’s co-pilot could likewise be heard uttering the Arabic phrase “Tawakalt Ala Allah” (“I rely on God”) 11 times in a minute and a half?

From the voice recorder transcript, translated from the Arabic, of the final two minutes of the taped cockpit conversation of EgyptAir Flight 990 before it crashed on Oct. 31, 1999. The voices on the recording are those of Gamil Batouti, a Co-pilot, and Capt. Ahmed al-Habashi, the pilot:

1:57 Co-pilot: I rely on God.
0:48 Co-pilot: I rely on God.
0:39 Co-pilot: I rely on God.
0:38 Co-pilot: I rely on God.
0:36 Co-pilot: I rely on God.
0:35 Co-pilot: I rely on God.
0:34 Co-pilot: I rely on God.
0:32 Co-pilot: I rely on God.
0:31 Co-pilot: I rely on God.
0:30 Pilot: What’s happening? What’s happening?
0:29 Co-pilot: I rely on God.
0:28 Co-pilot: I rely on God.
Pilot: What’s happening?
0:21 Pilot: What’s happening, Gamil? What’s happening?
0:12 Pilot: What is this? What is this? Did you shut the engine?
0:10 Pilot: Get away in the engines.
0:08 Pilot: Shut the engines.
0:07 Co-pilot: It’s shut.
0:05 Pilot: Pull.
0:04 Pilot: Pull with me.
0:02 Pilot: Pull with me.
0:00 Pilot: Pull with me.

Beats me. Make of it what you will.

Continue Reading Close

Page 2 of 2 in Lawrence Weschler