The Political Uses of Moving On
"……the current White House call to move on beyond the Bush campaign's tactics in Florida blames no one for the apparent failures of the Florida election system, preferring amnesia
……………………….************************…………….
"But when the country risks forgetting deficiencies in the democratic process, there should be no statute of limitations on remembering."
By TODD GITLIN
From The New York Times
July 28, 2001
Increasingly, Americans are being told to "move on" — to leave
uncomfortable feelings and unpleasant events behind us — especially
when it would be convenient for certain public figures if we forgot them.
This month, for example, The New York Times found there had been unequal
handling of some military absentee ballots and counting of illegal military
ballots in Florida last fall.
Ari Fleischer, President Bush's press secretary, in
response, offered this airy comment: "This election was decided by the
voters of Florida a long time ago, and the nation, the president and all but the
most partisan Americans have moved on."
A president, of course, has important work to do and can't dwell on Election
Day. But sometimes the moving on of certain politicians and their supporters
is a compound of amnesia, contempt, bravado and optimism, and their
exhortations to the public to join in have a self-serving ring.
Moving on is also selective. Consider the varying national memories of the
Vietnam War or of the deaths of American servicemen during a botched
mission in Somalia: the appeal to move on often depends on whose party
gets a political advantage from reviving unpleasant memories.
Selectivity is particularly strong in matters of scandal. During the many
months of political battle about Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Paula
Jones and, not least, Monica Lewinsky, Democrats called upon the
Republican-dominated Congress to move on. The Web site moveon.org
sprang up, collecting hundreds of thousands of on-line signatures, to lobby
Congress to censure President Bill Clinton and then get back to the nation's
business. Today, when the subject is the questionable Bush win in Florida,
some Democrats disdain the Republicans' determination to move on.
There are differences, however, between the moving-on arguments made in
these two controversies.
Moveon.org called on Congress to censure Mr. Clinton before moving on,
acknowledging the president's moral culpability while distinguishing it from
legal culpability. By contrast, the current White House call to move on
beyond the Bush campaign's tactics in Florida blames no one for the
apparent failures of the Florida election system, preferring amnesia. Tone is
different, too. During most of Mr. Clinton's years in the White House, major
Republican figures hammered away at him as if on a crusade, and news
media and commentators joined in, keeping the denunciations going even
after Mr. Clinton had left the White House. In comparison, today's
Congressional Democrats look remarkably relaxed. They are not traveling
the country deploring Republican immorality, and Senate committees now
headed by Democrats have not leaped to investigate the Florida voting or to
try to rectify deficiencies in the nation's electoral system. Nor are many
denunciations found in the press, which is otherwise occupied.
Casting a blind eye on the past is not new, least of all in America, where
optimism wins elections. "For 200 years we've lived in the future," Ronald
Reagan said in 1980. In the land of the smiley face, "Happy Days Are Here
Again" could be an anthem for any party. But when the country risks
forgetting deficiencies in the democratic process, there should be no statute
of limitations on remembering.
Todd Gitlin is professor of culture, journalism and sociology at New
York University and author of the forthcoming ``Media Unlimited.''
nytimes.com |
