by Damozel | First, a big, heartfelt THANK YOU is going out to BBC America from Nicholas and me for giving us a weekly helping of Newsnight, especially now that Real Time with Bill Maher seems to be turning into an incessant and increasingly embarrassing tongue-bath for Barack Obama.
Paxman is an investigative journalist of the ruthless pit bull sort they don't manufacture here and I was all set to jeer at Nader, whom I have never, never forgiven for the 2000 election (which Nader himself argues was stolen from Al Gore.)
But partway through I found myself, against my wishes, starting to see his side of it. For one thing, he didn't make the mistake of becoming angry or defensive. For another, what he said about how the political system is rigged to favor the monied interests is actually true. And probably this is also true: how do you fight the power unless you just fight the power? Why shouldn't a genuine progressive offer his fellow progressives an alternative against the corporate-money-funded 'legitimate' alternatives?
And how is he to blame for George W. Bush, since the election---according to him, not me---was stolen? Why attack Nader instead of the people who stole the election?
It was the first time I've seen things Nader's way, probably because of the increasing likelihood that I am going to be stuck this time with two candidates I don't want to see become president.
No matter what, I won't be voting for Nader because I'm determined to do whatever I have to to come to terms with the candidate my party gives me. Even so, Nader made points about the political system I've heard made by plenty of progressives before they started in on the Kool-Aid.
I was surprised that Nader came out of the Paxman interview looking, let us say, not a lot worse than he looked going in---probably because he was telling the 'truth' as he has always seen it rather than manufacturing excuses or telling lies.
Usually Paxman interview has the opposite effect: exposing the victim for the sad and shabby construct of ego, wishful thinking, time-serving, outright self-serving bullshit, and so forth, all thinly draped in a web of tissue-transparent lies that the American media never has the guts to try to tear away. Which is why I so love Jeremy 'Why is this lying bastard lying to me?" Paxman.
Surviving Paxman might indeed be a matter of showing humility, refusing to become defensive or rattled, and realizing that you haven't got a hope in hell of rebutting the premise that he sets up for you to knock down. The game, in a Paxman interview, is always rigged in favor of the house. The best you can hope for is not to expose yourself as whatever thing he starts off implying or saying that you are: a fool, a time-server, a liar, an egomaniac. Fortunately, most politicos or pundits can be counted on to expose themselves as fools, time-servers, liars, or egomaniacs. Most of them can be counted on to impale themselves on Paxman's lethal Trident O' Truth. I don't think Nader did that.
You might see it differently. Have a look for yourself: Jeremy Paxman versus 'egomaniac' Ralph Nader!
good essay! An interesting paradox...
Posted by: Runi Toconillo | March 05, 2008 at 10:07 PM