WHEN NEGATIVES THINK THEY’RE POSITIVES
In 1970, then U.S. Vice-president Spiro Agnew derided journalists (although some say he meant politicians) critical of Nixon administration policies as “nattering nabobs of negativism.” Today, the characterisation seems to be considered either complimentary or aspirational.
If that sounds like over-embellishment, consider that FOX News has made it a successful business model which has been called both damaging and disproportionately influential, in the sense that what FOX says, MAGA does, and vice-versa.
Politicians of a certain stripe mirror it. In an Op-Ed (sorry, “essay”) to mark the 80th anniversary of D‑Day, Senator Mitch McConnell wrote that “…the world was plunged into war, and millions of innocents died, because European powers and the United States met the rise of a militant authoritarian with appeasement or naïve neglect in the first place.”
Replace “European powers and the United States” with “a self-serving politician”, and you get a wondrous dearth of irony and a self-description that could only abide in a slavish-to-the-point-of-slobbering backer of a presidential candidate who wants to opt out of NATO, let Vladimir Putin (a “militant authoritarian” of proven and dangerous proportion) “do whatever the hell” he wants, and called North Korean dictator Kim Jung Un a “a great leader” with whom he had a “really good” relationship.
In the interest of fairness, however, bear in mind that 40 percent of South African voters ‚who have been failed by the African National Congress (ANC) for three uninterrupted decades, voted for them anyway. In a mini MAGA moment, 15 percent of voters cast ballots for a new party led by Jacob Zuma, a former president and convicted criminal, whose tenure was defined by rampant corruption and political violence.
I’m not sure how you put “Make South Africa Zuma Again” on a hat, but if there’s money to be made form it, no doubt someone in his new party will find a way.
EVEN THOSE WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER
In countries where political maturity and history ought to be guidelines, if not standards, the far right is on the rise by calling for negative actions against immigrants and in many cases, the very values for which the country they are supposedly trying to improve was either founded or prides itself on.
Top of the heap are Israel’s far-right cabinet members Itamar Ben-Gvir (National Security) and Bezalel Smotrich (Finance), both of whom advocate kicking all Palestinians out of what pro-Palestinian demonstrators like to characterise as “from the river to the sea”.
To square the circle of their fanaticism, they also refuse to accept any peace deal for Gaza that stops short of completely eliminating Hamas, even if it means all of the remaining Israeli hostages held by Hamas die.
The Biden administration seems happy to accept any and all negative actions by the Netanyahu government, from using U.S. weapons in ways that are banned, to an online influence campaign that “…used hundreds of fake accounts that posed as real Americans on X, Facebook and Instagram to post pro-Israel comments.”
The only surprise is that it seems to have come as a surprise. Israel has one of the most sophisticated – and unprincipled – hacking and cyber-spying capabilities in the world.
HO-HUM
In the public forum, some bad news is accepted, some revelled in, and worst of all, ignored. Sudan is the most disgraceful example.
By American estimates, since the war there erupted a year ago, as many as 150,000 people have died. The UN says that in the largest displacement crisis on earth, some nine million people have been forced from their homes and a looming famine could kill hundreds of thousand od children if it is unchecked.
Not being aware of, or worse, brushing that aside, is negativity on a sinful scale.
The war is the embodiment of pointless, which adds another level of meaning to negative.
It boils down to rival generals ( read warlords) and their arms suppliers who are willing to lay waste to cities, towns and villages, drive the population to starvation and commit genocide so they can control whatever is left.
It’s fair to ask whether the devastating and massive humanitarian crisis is being allowed to grind on in the background of public consciousness because its victims are brown and black people who live in a place and in ways most Westerners cannot begin to imagine.
Arguably, the answer is yes, which is another way of saying people’s perceived value is negatively affected by their ethnicity.
It’s sad but also fitting in its own way that the last words on those doing their utmost to ignore or profit by negativity, are summed up in alliteration from the disgraced U.S. Vice-President: “hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history.”
Comments are welcomed. Click CONTACT on the site header.
To receive e‑mail alerts to new posts, Click SIGN-UP on the header.
5 thoughts on “WHEN NEGATIVES THINK THEY’RE POSITIVES”
Columbia philosopher Sidney Morgenbesser was challenged with: “you’ve heard 2 negatives make a positive, but I bet you can’t have 2 positives make a negative.”
His answer? “Yeah, yeah.”
Love it
Allen,
Your Agnew quote reminded me, that way back then, when he made that speech from DeMoines we were planning to cover his speech as a live event. To try and make amends for being somewhat nasty to Mr. Nixon. Sadly it was scheduled for delivery just a very short time before he gave it. We tried to get a line to DeMoines but Ma Bell did not have enough time to get the needed lines installed. I also remember that Agnew, nor his speech writers had the ability, or the talent, to write such a speech. Instead they asked Mr. Nixon’s chief speech writer to help them, and so William Safire, who was soon to resign from the White House staff, to start his long career as an Op-Ed page mainstay for the New York Times. Safire took up his trusty typewriter , as a favor to Agnew, and parting gesture to the White House, very quickly turned out Agnew’s most famous speech as a small favor. I was told, at the time, that it took Safire less than 20 minutes.
In case you hadn’t heard it before.
Allen,
Your Agnew quote reminded me, that way back then, when he made that speech from DeMoines it was suggested we cover his speech as a live event. To try and make amends for being somewhat nasty to Mr. Nixon. Sadly it was scheduled for delivery just a very short time before he gave it. We tried to get a line to DeMoines but Ma Bell did not have enough time to get the needed lines installed . We had to cover it with a film. I also remember that Agnew, nor his speech writers had the ability, or the talent, to write such a speech quickly. Instead they asked Mr. Nixon’s chief of staff Haldeman to get their best speech writer speech writer to help them. So William Safire, who was soon to resign from the White House staff, to start his long career as an Op-Ed page mainstay for the New York Times. took up his trusty typewriter As a favor to Agnew, and a parting gesture to the White House, he very quickly turned out Agnew’s most famous speech as a small favor. I was told, at the time, that it took Safire less than 20 minutes.
In case you hadn’t heard it before.
I knew Safire wrote it, but not the circumstances. And I’m willing to bet not manynproducers of today could cope with what the make-it-up-as-you-go days demanded.