CSotD: Six impossible things before breakfast
Skip to comments
In today's Candorville, Lemont addresses the matter of "executive orders" with a pretty reasonable explanation: Facing a hostile, do-nothing Congress, maybe Obama is forced to issue more executive orders than other presidents.
I like the explanation and I think it's something conservatives should consider.
Because they're not likely to be swayed by someone pointing out that, in fact, Obama hasn't issued more executive orders than any president in history, or even the average president.
If you look at the facts, he actually issued fewer executive orders in his first administration than any president for whom we have records that break executive orders down by terms:
For those first terms, here are the numbers:
Truman – 504
Eisenhower – 266
Kennedy – 214
Johnson – 325 (partial and first)
Nixon – 247
Ford (partial) – 169
Carter – 320
Reagan – 213
Bush I – 166
Clinton – 200
Bush II – 173
Obama – 147
Now, it is true that Bush II only issued 118 Executive Orders in his second term, but there's quite a gap between "ever" and "last time around." And, at that point, Lemont's explanation may also come into play: Bush got some cooperation from Congress, particularly after he'd driven the economy into the ditch and requested legislation for which Obama was later blamed.
In any case, the whole "than any other president" deal is a crock, and raises the question of why people believe things that aren't true, even when they can easily be fact-checked.
An executive order leaves a clear trail, but people will believe what they want to believe, despite any amount of proof, evidence or reasonable discussion. None of which they appear to bother to read.
This predates the Internet. I often suggested, back in the Stone Age, that you could fill a column with the faux-Latin nonsense used to rough out brochures, and put the word "abortion" in the middle, and you would get 100 letters in opposition and 100 in favor.
It is not new, nor is it partisan.
Beck, Limbaugh and O'Reilly have found a way to cash in on credulous paranoia, but the fact that the left seems to approach it pro bono doesn't mean that gullibility is a right-wing exclusive.
For instance, the paranoid canard about concentration camps being built for radicals is popular among right-wing crazies, but, dammit, our left-wing crazies invented that! They stole it from us!
But the fact that our phones really were being tapped and our mail really was being opened doesn't mean the part about concentration camps wasn't still a bunch of paranoid nonsense back then, and it doesn't mean it isn't paranoid nonsense today.
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you," sure, but, by the same token, the fact that there are dogs pooping on your lawn doesn't mean there are werewolves pissing on your rosebushes.
There remains a burden of proof to be met.
It's not always easy. I watched "All the President's Men" last night and was struck by the moment in the film when the editors spar over who should cover Watergate, once Woodward and Bernstein have begun to connect it to CREEP and the White House, and I was thinking that it's one helluva dilemma, to have to decide between assigning the two rookies who don't know anybody or turning it over to the chummy elbow-rubbers who cover the White House regularly and maybe know everybody just a little too well.
Which isn't envy or paranoia: I've known local cops reporters who began to believe they carried a badge, and sports reporters at all levels who thought they were part of the team. It's an occupational hazard, albeit one that is somewhat accented by putting on a tux and walking down the red carpet at the White House Courtesans Annual Dinner.
I was also struck once more by how many people think Deep Throat advised Woodward to "follow the money," when that line isn't in the book, but only in the screenplay.
And, y'know, by subsequent rethinking of Woodward in general.
But the bottom line was that everybody knew Nixon was a bastard. That wasn't in question.
You still had to prove that Watergate was more than a "third-rate burglary," and Ben Bradlee would keep tossing your story back in your face until you had it nailed down.
Which is why we refer to those as "the good old days."
Because then this morning, before getting to Candorville, I saw a reposting on Facebook of an NPR piece about people who continue, against all scientific evidence, to believe in a connection between vaccinations and autism.
Which reminded me of an On The Media report from a year ago about how slap-dash, ignorant media coverage had elevated a dubious and quickly denounced study on the topic into a dogmatic belief that simply will not die.
And then, still BC ("Before Candorville"), I came across a piece denouncing the misinformed frenzy around a clause in the Continuing Resolution which the President signed. According to those with organic, fair-trade tinfoil in their hats, this "Monsanto Protection Act" enshrines forever the frankenveggies of the Great Corporate Satan.
In fact, it does no such thing. It's a short-term restriction that does very little except to prevent nuisance lawsuits and injunctions. And this somewhat more partisan take on the topic suggests that that whole anti-Monsanto movement is secretly funded by anti-climate change interests.
Which doesn't turn Monsanto into good guys. And it doesn't mean that artificially altered foods are just as safe as regular old-time hybrids.
It means, as Ben Bradlee told his boys, you haven't got the story.
And so the worst thing to take away from all this that "everybody does it." While generally true, this is not even slightly insightful and is a tremendous cop-out.
If what you're saying is that it's impossible to ascertain the truth, well, fine. Then shut up, because you're not helping.
And if you are saying that you are one of the few so clever as to see through all the delusions, then you have only three choices: 1. Share the truth and save the world, 2. Trying breaking the pills in half or 3. Get over yourself.
For my part, I don't think it shows any particular intelligence or insight to realize that you shouldn't believe the first thing you hear and that you should not only look for proof, but look closely at the quality of that proof.
Growing up in a very small town taught me that, while there is always a lot of gossip floating around, most people go by the old advice, "consider the source."
I think that humble wisdom applies even in the Big City.
We all hear nonsense presented as fact, and you should expect no points for seeing through it. You should, however, lose points for not questioning it.
Even the Red Queen was, by her own admission, only able to believe the large number of impossible things she did as a result of practicing half an hour a day.
Mike Peterson has posted his "Comic Strip of the Day" column every day since 2010. His opinions are his own, but we welcome comments either agreeing or in opposition.
Comments 2
Comments are closed.