There is pathos, then, in the failure of a speech. There is pathos when a president’s rhetoric proves unable, by its own standards, to take us somewhere better than we were before. And that pathos extends to the press—who in this case, Mattson suggests, served not merely as first-draft historians, but also, in their failure to see beyond the vagaries of the political moment, as agents of stagnation.
In that regard, ‘What the Heck’ is haunted by the specter of its own conditionality. It is the story of a speech that, to downgrade the moralism of Mattson’s title to mere realism, could have changed the country. “Are we so certain that the turn taken was the right one?” Mattson asks. “To remember Jimmy Carter’s speech today allows us to ask that question with the sort of moral import it deserves.”
Indeed, it is that moral space—the space not only between promise and reality, but between the inspiring and obstructive capacity of words themselves—that the press must navigate every day. Journalists must have split loyalties if they are to discharge their duties fairly and well. They must answer both to the present moment and to history—and to both at the same time. ‘What the Heck’ is, in the end, a sober reminder of all that is at stake in that paradox, and of what can go wrong when the press surrenders itself to the caprice of the instant. Mattson’s is not a message of happiness or reassurance. But it is the truth, and it is a warning.
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/i_got_what_america_needs_right
#1 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Thu 30 Jul 2009 at 05:45 PM
I haven't read Mattson's book, I admit. But for those who didn't live through the Carter administration, a closer look at the period may be in order before accepting what appear to be Mattson's attempt to revive Carter's reputation. The 1960s and 1970s were an era when political institutions went off the tracks - when the idea of politics as salvation for our sins suffered real discredit. Speeches denouncing American greed, materialism, etc., will always get a good academic press, but Carter came across as blaming the masses when it was the political elites - whom he had originally campaigned against - who had betrayed the trust of the public. He had 'gone Washington' by 1979. Carter's tone-deaf personality was such that he was strongly challenged within his own party - most of Kennedy's supporters agreed with Carter on specific issues. It's not the fault of ordinary human beings that they are more responsive to postive incentives than to hectoring.
The 'malaise' attributed to his speech was subsequently lifted by the election of a more competent successor and his team. It's not at all unusual for particularly self-righteous leaders to blame the people for his own shortcomings, which is why Carter remains the Democratic counterpart to Herbert Hoover in our politics.
Oh, and Hendrik Hertzberg's current employer, The New Yorker, is replicating the fate of the Carter Administration, losing money and readers . . . I guess it's the fault of the reading public, which just won't do what those editors and politicians tell them to do.
#2 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 31 Jul 2009 at 12:33 PM
[i]It's not at all unusual for particularly self-righteous leaders to blame the people for his own shortcomings, which is why Carter remains the Democratic counterpart to Herbert Hoover in our politics.
[/i]
Sure, Mark... the American people are a bunch of smart, responsible and forward-thinking folks, and Jimmy Carter should be ashamed of himself for implying that they might eventually have to take responsibility for their actions.
Don't worry, be happy.
#3 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 31 Jul 2009 at 04:19 PM
Hmm, Hardrada's comment underlines that contempt for some generic stereotype of "Americans" - a contempt always denied in the abstract by people on the Left - which is the subtext of so much of Left politics and culture. I'll leave the large statements about "Americans' to such deep thinkers, and simply note that all sides - the Kennedy-wing Left of the Democratic Party and the Republicans, too - agreed with the public perception that Carter's incompetence as a president, whatever his potential competence as a clergyman - was evident by 1979.
#4 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 3 Aug 2009 at 12:49 PM
Once again, you can see why Carter, Caddell and Hertzberg were so tragically out of touch. Americans weren't worried about Watergate (6 years old) Vietnam (7 years old) or the environment. Nor were they all hanging out at Studio 54. Maybe wealthy litterati living in Manhattan were going to Studio 54 or thinking about a long-ended war they dodged so common Americans from small mill towns could die in their place. These elitists were not in Conneaut, Ohio or Flint, Michigan or Dunkirk, New York. Common American working people were losing their jobs, losing their careers, losing their homes, losing their towns and losing their national pride. This spectacular disaster of a speech which clearly blamed the Amnerican people for Carter's pathetic failures is possibly the worst piece of political rhetoric of the 20th Century. Walter Mondale showed his humanity when he begged Carter not to give a speech that didn't understand that Americans were really suffering. Sorry, but this tragic speech made Reagan possible.
#5 Posted by Botendaddy, CJR on Thu 25 Feb 2010 at 07:16 PM