« Is there a House in the house? | Main | Glenn Smith on the (cough cough) progressive elite »

Spin cycle

Frank Paynter's posted an exploration of spin in the postmodern context, reminding me of the bumperschticker that admonishes us to Question Reality. [Link]

How was The Rail Splitter different from George W. Bush?  What and who informed the electorate in 1860 and how does that information differ from so called "postmodern spin?"  I sense an historical cycle playing out, but my inference is probably naïve and wrong.  History does not repeat itself any more than the planets' "retrograde motion" is evidence of epicyclical behavior proving that the Earth is the center of the solar system.  Stephens suggests that the postmoderns have rationalized "spin" as acceptable information sharing behavior and that this is somehow new.  Spin is neither acceptable nor new.  To spin is to lie and lying remains unacceptable.

The right recognizes that the people abhor spin, but they also know that the people are willing to forgive a few little lies.  The warmth of belonging to the fan-base of the demagogue more than compensates for the chilling effects of a few campaign exaggerations. There's a right wing propaganda broadcast that touts itself as "no-spin."  This exercise in self-conscious ironic recursion speaks volumes about the public's willingness to accept what they are told, so long as the story is presented in an entertaining fashion. "No-spin" is itself of course a spin.  It represents a clashing of values with the leftward perspective that the show's performers are "lying liars."  No dialectic, no reasoned argument, is possible between these two positions.  The self-righteous left and the duplicitous right have no common ground for discussion.

Paul Krugman, writing recently about Karl Rove, said, "What Rove understood, long before the rest of us, is that we're not living in the America of the past, where even partisans sometimes changed their views when faced with the facts. Instead, we're living in a country in which there is no longer such a thing as nonpolitical truth. In particular, there are now few, if any, limits to what conservative politicians can get away with: The faithful will follow the twists and turns of the party line with a loyalty that would have pleased the Comintern."  Stephens points out in his essay that this is consistent with the postmodern destruction of fact in favor of context.

jon posted this at 8:46 AM
Share on Facebook| email to a friend

 Subscribe to RSS feed for Weblogsky