savage indignation
I am a devoted fan of Dan Savage, so was distressed to see his blog post taking me to task. It’s like being condemned by a dear friend…A dear friend who I admire for being willing to condemn everybody else, so I guess I should have seen this coming.
Dan was talking about a segment on this week’s show in which we quoted Andy Card talking about the “locker room” atmosphere of the Obama Oval Office, because Obama had been photographed sitting at his desk (the Resolute desk) without a suit jacket. Dan feels we knowingly or unknowingly were parroting a false Republican talking point; ie, that Bush and Reagan always wore suit jackets in the Oval Office, when photos (in his post) show clearly that they sometimes did not.
Well, you can listen to the show yourself, or read the transcript of the segment (I’ll post it after the gap) and decide for yourself if we were parroting anything. For my part, I’ll say this: if there has been any single theme to emerge over the last eight years, it’s the displacement, sometimes intentionally, of substance by symbolism. President Bush himself seemed obsessed with appearances; America always had to “show the world” and “send messages to our enemies” because we didn’t want to “send a signal” that would show we were weak, etc. Historians might decide, someday, that the entire rationale for the Iraq War boiled down to sending a message to the world… a trillion dollar Twitter post: “@muslimworld We will kick ur a$$ & take names!”
This tiny little brouhaha seems to me more of the same. That Andy Card would get all steamed up about the message Obama was sending by wearing shirtsleeves is, to me, hilarious, and it’s my fault if I didn’t make that clear enough in this week’s show. Perhaps I thought it was more self-evident than is the case. And I think that those who believe that brandishing pictures of W. without a suit jacket proves anything about anything important are making a similar error.
And, in regards to being a “card carrying member of the liberal media:” actually, these days it’s a little bar-code thingie on our keychains. They scan it at the checkout and we get 20% off our quinoa.
Transcript of the offending comment follows:
Carl: I’m disappointed to see the casual, laissez faire, short sleeves, no shirt and tie, no jacket, kind of locker room experience that seems to be taking place [there].
Peter: That is Andy Card, a former aide to President Bush talking to radio host Michael Medved about the atmosphere where?
THE OVAL OFFICE/WHITE HOUSE. Former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card is offended by President Obama turning the Oval Office into a dude’s paradise. He was reacting to photos of Obama sitting at the Resolute desk in just his shirt sleeves–no jacket. Here’s Card talking to Inside Edition, “The Oval Office symbolizes…the Constitution, the hopes and dreams, and I’m gonna say democracy.” Of course, during the Bush years, there was a strict dress code—jackets and ties were required at all times in Oval Office, even for a casual, Sunday morning waterboarding session. Clinton of course , also insisted on jackets and ties, though in those more liberal days pants were optional.
February 8th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Hmm…this is an interesting dialogue. I had a similar reaction to Savage’s while listening to your program yesterday-an immediate kind of knee-jerk “oh, no–please don’t go spreading negative propaganda about Obama!”
With a little more thought, however, I have concluded that my reaction, and perhaps Savage’s as well, is a result of liberals who are just plain scared of the media representing Obama negatively, satirically or otherwise. After all we’ve worked for to get here and after such horrible eight years, we want the nation’s collective “hopefulness” about this new Pres to last, and anything that could get in the way of that scares us.
Yet, it’s important that we, as liberals and as a country, not coddle Obama. If we continue to instantly react with such over-protective parenting towards Obama, we risk losing our eye for objectivity and, perhaps as equally important to some, our sense of humor.
February 8th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Oh no! You are two of my favorites! No fighting!
February 8th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
It stings to get negative commentary (having received a few through my blog), but I don’t think Savage was making a personal attack on you or WWDTM. Although he backpedals on having to admit he does so…..
But maybe you can turn this to your advantage. You guys could be come the Lindsey Lohan/Hillary Duff of public radio! I say have Dan as a guest on the show soon!
February 8th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
if it makes you feel any better, you can talk about this editorial next week: http://tinyurl.com/cyol2o
February 8th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
I said it on Dan’s blog and I’ll say it here. They could wear footie pajamas in the Oval for all I care as long as they are making good decisions! Can we PLEASE, for the love of God, start caring about substance over style? Please, Peter, mock all who perpetuate these ridiculous non-issues until they stop.
February 8th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
It was a joke, plain and simple. The fact that Dan Savage and some listeners don’t realize that we can poke fun at the president (even a president we adore) is sad and hypocritical. They need to take a chill pill. Please don’t treat Obama and his presidency with kid gloves.
February 8th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
One of the reasons I LOVE WWDTM and you, Peter, is that you find the funny in ALL sides- Republican, Democrat, Independent, politician, celebrity, Everyman - and that’s why I continue to listen and read your blog.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:47 am
I’ve been listening to your show for many many years. I learned fairly early on that, like Jon Stewart, you goal is to deliver the joke first, and the arch social commentary is usually implied rather than explicit. The subtext I got from the segment was “Gee, because the appearance of competence is just *SOOO* much more important than *actual* competence.” And I can hear you saying exactly that.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:31 am
Ok, I’m clearly dimwitted or something because when I heard this bit on WWDTM I did not hear it as poking fun at the current administration, but at the previous one(s), and at Andy Card for having such a petty, snotty attitude.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:02 am
I’m with Maria–that was my take as well! Comedy should always come first–that’s why I love WWDTM so much.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
And one more another take to match Maria’s, and Wendy’s:
The only mocking I heard in the segment was aimed squarely at Andy Card, and any others out there who actually think that sort of thing matters.
(Never mind the obvious symbolism of ‘rolling up the sleeves,’ suggesting that the new guy in the O.O. plans on getting some real work done…)
Even if this were somehow a criticism of Obama, though, I’d just as soon not go into a four year stint where repeating so searing a quote as, “Look! He’s not wearing his jacket!” is seen as a betrayal of liberal ideals!
February 10th, 2009 at 5:57 am
Yes, Anna–especially since liberals had to go through the “Look! He wasn’t wearing any pants!” jokes sometime back in the late 90s.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
I once saw Dan Savage wearing a gray flannel suit at International Mr. Leather weekend.
February 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Still embarrassed that my earnest critique of P. Sagal on a local Seattle blog appears to have been read by P. Sagal. Are my ears red. Especially because WWDTM has been nothing but kind to me–I have Karl Cassell’s voice on my voice mail.
Reminds me of my grandmother. When we cleaned out her house, we found a signed letter from J. Edgar Hoover. “Dear Mrs. X, Thank you for denouncing your neighbors. We can neither confirm nor deny that the FBI will follow up on this. Sincerely, …”
Take care, Mr. Sagal. Keep up the good work, especially the good work. I owe you a beer.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Christine–
To hell with good decisions, if Obama wore footie pajamas in the Oval Office, I would die happy.