One of the pitfalls in my profession is keeping at it too long, letting the mental declines of memory and judgment that come with aging begin to intrude before you realize it, and your patients or colleagues have to tell you that you're losing it and should quit.
I guess it's sort of like when do you take away Grandpa's car keys?
Journalists are apparently not immune to mental decline either, and some don't know when to quit. Perhaps the Washington Post contract with David Broder doesn't have a clause covering such things as when he should quit.
David Broder used to be called the Dean of Political Journalists, or something like that, and he was known as an astute political observer. But for some time now he's occasionally taken really loony positions on things or said something outrageous. I'm not the first to suggest his retirement is overdue.
Now, he has all but suggested the solution to the economy is to go to war with Iran. Well, not quite. But he says we should talk about it and prepare for it -- and that will boost both the confidence and support from the right for President Obama (they like saber-rattling, which Cheney's Dubya was so good at), and at the same time boost the economy as it gears up to make all those expensive tools of war. He points, of course, to the well-known economic boom that came with World War II and helped restore the still-lagging economy from the Great Depression.
I'm opposed to mandatory retirement at a certain age. Daniel Schorr was still as sharp as a tack and making cogent commentary when he died at 84. Elliot Carter personally conducted the premier performance of his new classical musical composition to celebrate his 100th birthday.
Broder is only 81. And I, of course, am still going strong at 78 (minus 6 weeks).
But, it's time for David Broder to hang it up.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
All this high-mindedness doesn't really change the fact that Broder is right, in a sense. Preparing for a war WOULD boost the economy, provide jobs, etc. But he doesn't consider how we would pay for it.
ReplyDeleteThe WWII spending was coupled with austerity measures and a cooperative populace, who willingly went into sacrificial mode amdist great political fervor. The sacrifice included rationing, not just gasoline but some food items as well, like butter and sugar.
We don't have that situation today, and Dubya taught us to expect to fight not one, but two, war simultaneosly without having to pay for either -- and at the same time to cut taxes.
That is not the right formula. It would only further our economic disaster if we prepare for war with Iran and charge it to China. Besides the ruinous national debt, what if China made a deal with Iran (not at all unlikely) and decided to call in its debt -- and threw the U.S. into bankruptcy or turned us into a puppet of China?
What do you say to that, Mr. Broder?
What a great idea! Let's trump up another war with somebody. Maybe Iran had ties with Bin Laden. Maybe Iran has WMD's. Scratch that. Maybe they have a lot more WMD's we don't even know about. Maybe Ahmadinejad is a bad man. Maybe they have oil in Iran. Why we could just dust off Condi's and Cheney's old speeches and change all the "q"s to "n"s.
ReplyDeleteThink of all the trees it would save from having to generate all that paperwork over again. Just go through and cross out the "q"sand write in "n"s. Brilliant move.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they could avoid another battle in Congress and just pass a resolution that corrected the "typos" in the 1993 powers it gave the president.