fbpx

January 16, 2012

Pew Survey: Is the “Mormon Moment” a Myth?

On two Sundays a month I teach a spiritual lesson to a group of high priests (mostly older men) in my congregation. Today we began with a spirited discussion of the new Pew survey, which shows that 46% of American Mormons feel that there is a lot of discrimination against Mormons in the United States. This survey could not be more timely, given the presidential campaigns of two (soon to be one) Mormon candidates, the award-winning “The Book of Mormon” Broadway play, the legions of Twilight fans inspired by LDS author Stephenie Meyer, and the misguided followers of Glenn Beck. Are Mormons winning hearts and minds in America, or is the country’s so-called “Mormon Moment” a myth?

I don’t deny for a moment that anti-Mormon sentiment exists in this country. Growing up Mormon in Mississippi or South Carolina is undoubtedly different from being raised in Utah or Idaho. In some ways, obsession with LDS beliefs and practices is more widespread than in previous decades. Mitt Romney’s religion has been publicly attacked during the last two presidential campaigns, while his father’s faith was rarely raised during his gubernatorial campaign and service in the Cabinet in the 1960s and early 1970s. Ditto for J. Reuben Clark, the former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico in the 1930s who rose to become the second-ranking LDS Church official.
               
However, it’s important to distinguish hostility to our faith from opposition to our actions. I grew up in a small city in central Michigan and was the only Mormon in my high school graduation class of 389 students.  I can only recall two anti-Mormon actions directed at me and my family. The first offender was my high school guidance counselor, who gave anti-Mormon literature to my Catholic girlfriend and actively discouraged her from converting to Mormonism. The second was an Evangelical family friend who came to my sister’s wedding reception at a hotel but refused to attend her wedding because it took place in a Mormon chapel. In both of these cases the men objected to LDS beliefs, which is clearly a form of anti-Mormonism.

Here in southern California, home to hundreds of thousands of Mormons and a live-and-let-live philosophy, there is little discrimination against LDS doctrines and religious practices. Actions, however, are another story. During the Proposition 8 campaign to eliminate state-sanctioned gay marriage, I was regularly attacked by advocates of tolerance. Some of them even contacted my employer, a Jewish organization, in an effort to have me fired for daring to oppose gay marriage (to their credit, my supervisors reminded the tolerant folks that the First Amendment was still in effect). As much as I disliked their actions, I have to admit that they were taken in response to the actions, not beliefs, of LDS Church members, including me.

The activists who attempted to storm the Mormon Temple in Los Angeles were in a class of their own, but for the most part our opponents objected to our actions, not our theology. Were their protests inspired by anti-Mormonism or anti-anti-gay-marriage-ism? My gut tells me it’s the latter. If Mormons are going to take sides in controversial political campaigns – even for good causes – then we should expect to encounter opposition every step of the way, much of it from people who disagree with us on principle but have no beef with our religion.

Opposition to Mormon political candidates is sometimes viewed by Mormons as prima facie evidence of anti-Mormonism. However, if merely opposing Mormon politicians is an expression of anti-Mormonism, then the Pew survey shows that many Latter-day Saints are anti-Mormon. Mitt Romney got a favorable rating from 86% of Mormons in the survey, three-quarters of whom identified as Republicans. However, only half (50%) of Mormons have a favorable view of former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, with LDS Senator Harry Reid getting kudos from only 22% of Mormons (I suspect it’s even lower outside Nevada). The differing levels of support in the LDS community for LDS politicians show that factors other than religion can influence both Mormon and non-Mormon voters to support a given candidate. In Harry Reid’s case, his support for federal funding of Planned Parenthood and protection of the gaming industry in Nevada, inter alia, alienate him from large numbers of his coreligionists.

I was relieved to discover via the Pew survey that just like Jews, this perceived bigotry doesn’t prevent Mormons from being happy: 87% of us are satisfied with our lives today. The Pew Forum summarized the results with the headline “Certain in Their Beliefs, Uncertain of Their Place in Society.” In a day when the opposite is true of so many religious groups, including two large Jewish movements, I am pleased that while I may disagree with some of the survey’s respondents on the extent of anti-Mormonism in our country, we are in agreement that being a Mormon is a recipe for happiness.     

Pew Survey: Is the “Mormon Moment” a Myth? Read More »

Spielberg, Allen garner Golden Globes

The movie industry’s two veteran super-Jews, Steven Spielberg and Woody Allen, didn’t walk off with the most prestigious awards at Sunday’s Golden Globe Awards, but neither did they go home empty-handed.

“The Adventures of Tintin” earned Spielberg top honors for best animated feature film, but his other current hit movie, “War Horse,” was nosed out by “The Descendants” as best dramatic motion picture.

“Midnight in Paris” initially led the field with three nominations for best picture (musical or comedy), director and screenplay. But Allen, continuing the tradition of not showing up, made do with the best screenplay award.

In the competition for best foreign-language film, Iran cemented its frontrunner status with its entry “A Separation.” Israel’s contender, “Footnote,” by Joseph Cedar, did not make the five finalists cut.

On the television side, Israel could take some vicarious pleasure in top honors for the drama series “Homeland,” and for its co-star Claire Danes as best actress. “Homeland” is based on the Israeli TV hit “Hatufim” (Prisoners of War) and is produced by Howard Gordon.

“Modern Family,” created by Steve Levitan (with Christopher Lloyd), topped the field as best drama TV series (musical or comedy).

The annual Golden Globe Awards are produced by the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn.

Spielberg, Allen garner Golden Globes Read More »

Must Read, January 16, 2012

A Year for Elections, Not Mideast Peace

In a piece that appeared on both the Wall Street Journal and Real Clear Politics, Elliot Abrams explains that with the American, the Palestinian and the Israeli leaders all facing the specter of elections, domestic affairs are pushing peace talks to the rear.

“Why should Mr. Netanyahu risk destroying his coalition in a possible election year, when previous Israeli offers-especially in 2000 and 2008-were refused, and when he believes the White House doesn’t have his back? And why take such risks when Mr. Abbas seems on the verge of inviting Hamas into the Palestine Liberation Organization, which would bring negotiations to a screeching halt anyway?”

Being Muslim and a feminist are not mutually exclusive

Writing in Lebanon’s Daily Star, Fatemeh Fakhraie says that women who blend Islam and feminism in their lives not uncommon.

“I don’t see contradictions between Islam and feminism at the big picture level. There are echoes of Islam and feminism in each other; though Islam is about submission to God, an important facet of that is submission to what’s just. Thus, both Islam and feminism guide my outlook and my work. Thus, both Islam and feminism guide my outlook and my work.”

Ignore the hyperbole on Hormuz: embargoes don’t work

In an opinion piece in the Financial Times, Chatham House fellow Paul Stevens warns that while Iran would not close the Strait of Hormuz, tighter oil sanctions on Tehran would not have the desired outcome.

“While no route to restricting Iranian oil revenues is perfect, at least financial sanctions are not as likely to lead to a popular backlash as an oil embargo, which would be seen as an attack on Iran.”

The Best of Times, The Worst of Times for Women Rabbis

In a piece for the website of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judasim, Joanne Palmer, talks to women rabbis about their experiences, and finds a mixed reaction.

“Institutionally, at any rate, women are flourishing in the Conservative movement. For the first time, women rabbis occupy both of the Rabbinical Assembly’s top offices – Rabbi Julie Schonfeld is its executive vice president and Rabbi Gilah Dror, who is the spiritual leader of Rodef Sholom Temple in Hampton, Virginia, is president. This would have been unthinkable even a decade ago.”

Two Palestines, Complete

In Jewish Ideas Daily, Elliot Jager looks at the whether Hamas and Fatah – the two groups that dominate Palestinian politics – can ever really reconcile, and what it means for Israel.

“The Fatah-Hamas schism has only intensified the intransigence, fanaticism, and obduracy that have long characterized the Palestinian polity. Two “Palestines” do not equal one partner for Israel in building a viable two-state solution.”

Must Read, January 16, 2012 Read More »

The Israel Factor 01.2012, Full Statistics

1. On a scale of 1 (not at all worried) to 5 (very worried), how worried were you (or how worried do you think Israel should be) by the following statements and incidents:

Secretary of State Clinton allegedly comparing Israel to Iran

2.78

Secretary of Defense Panetta calling on Israelis and Palestinians to go “back to the damn table”

1.78

The American ambassador to Belgium saying Israel is partially responsible for anti Semitism

3.44

Candidate Gingrich saying the Palestinians are “invented” people

2.67

Candidate Romney refusing to commit to move the American embassy to Jerusalem

1.44

Candidate Paul’s very strong showing in Iowa and New Hampshire

2.22

Israel becoming a political tool in the battle between Republicans and Democrats

3.11

2. Taking a wild guess, what would you say will be the percentage of Jewish voters voting for the Republican nominee in each of the following cases:

Percentage of voters for the GOP nominee

Obama vs. Romney

34.12

Obama vs. Gingrich

31.75

Obama vs. Ron Paul

7.75


3. A. Looking ahead for 2012, please rate the following Presidential candidates on scale of 1 (bad for Israel) to 10 (good for Israel):

Barak Obama

6.78

Mitt Romney

7.67

Newt Gingrich

7

Ron Paul

1.78

Rick Santorum

5.33

Rick Perry

5.78

Jon Huntsman

6.56

B. In the following head-to-head races, which candidate is better from an Israeli perspective? Please score each of the two from 1 (bad) to 5 (good)

Barak Obama

Mitt Romney

3.14

4

Barak Obama

Ron Paul

3.86

1.29

The Israel Factor 01.2012, Full Statistics Read More »

The Israel Factor 01.2012, Questionnaire

1. On a scale of 1 (not at all worried) to 5 (very worried), how worried were you (or how worried do you think Israel should be) by the following statements and incidents:


Secretary of State Clinton allegedly comparing Israel to Iran

 

Secretary of Defense Panetta calling on Israelis and Palestinians to go “back to the damn table”

 

The American ambassador to Belgium saying Israel is partially responsible for anti Semitism

 

Candidate Gingrich saying the Palestinians are “invented” people

 

Candidate Romney refusing to commit to move the American embassy to Jerusalem

 

Candidate Paul’s very strong showing in Iowa and New Hampshire

 

Israel becoming a political tool in the battle between Republicans and Democrats

 

2. Taking a wild guess, what would you say will be the percentage of Jewish voters voting for the Republican nominee in each of the following cases:

Percentage of voters for the GOP nominee

Obama vs. Romney

Obama vs. Gingrich

Obama vs. Ron Paul


3. A. Looking ahead for 2012, please rate the following Presidential candidates on scale of 1 (bad for Israel) to 10 (good for Israel):

Barak Obama

Mitt Romney

Newt Gingrich

Ron Paul

Rick Santorum

Rick Perry

Jon Huntsman

B. In the following head-to-head races, which candidate is better from an Israeli perspective? Please score each of the two from 1 (bad) to 5 (good)

Barak Obama

Mitt Romney

 

 

Barak Obama

Ron Paul

The Israel Factor 01.2012, Questionnaire Read More »

The Israel Factor panel predicts 34% of the Jewish vote for Romney

I asked them to take a wild guess, and it is indeed wild to try and predict what Jewish voters will do come November. One panelist asked to be released from the guessing game. One panelist (Prof. Fred Lazin) made sure to remind me that the choice of the Vice Presidential nominee can make a difference in the way Jewish voters behave (Sarah Palin didn’t much help McCain with Jewish voters, although – as I’ve demonstrated here – “most Jewish voters jumped on the Obama bandwagon way before Palin was nominated”). A Clinton might help Obama, an ultra-conservative GOP nominee might hurt Romney (assuming that he is the candidate). All in all, the prediction presented here is more a way of taking the pulse of the panel and the way it feels about Jewish American political moods, than an attempt to accurately forecast the final outcome of the 2012 Jewish vote.

We wanted the panelists to first see what happened both in Iowa and New Hampshire, and only then respond to our second survey of this election year (the first survey is here, if you’re not yet familiar with The Israel Factor and would like to know more about it, read this). So The Israel Factor panel was answering this survey in the days following the New Hampshire primaries. Clearly, all the panelists now understand that Mitt Romney is the most likely nominee of the Republican Party, and in this survey, as we’ve seen in previous surveys since 2006, the panel still believes that from an Israeli perspective, a Romney presidency would be better than a second Obama term.

Now let’s turn to the question of the Jewish vote.

Percentage of voters for the GOP nominee

Obama vs. Romney

34.12

Obama vs. Gingrich

31.75

Obama vs. Ron Paul

7.75

We asked the panel to envision three possible scenarios: An Obama vs. Romney race, a much less likely Obama vs. Gingrich race, and the very unlikely Obama vs. Paul race. For each of these possible races we’ve asked the panel: “Taking a wild guess, what would you say will be the percentage of Jewish voters voting for the Republican nominee in each of the following cases?”

Predictably, the Obama-Paul race is not really a match worthy of much attention. Our panel believes that even the fairly conservative section of the American Jewish community would be unenthusiastic about candidate Paul. Some panelists believe Paul would get as low as 2% of the Jewish vote, and some put him closer to the traditional 20-25% of Jews voting for the GOP nominee (as high as 16%). While the panel in general treats Paul as the candidate with no real chance of gaining among Jewish voters, that is a significant difference between the panelists who see Paul as the untouchable candidate for almost all Jewish voters, and those believing that there’s still a fair number of hard-core Jewish conservatives who would basically vote for any GOP nominee over Obama.

The more interesting comparison though is the one between Romney and Gingrich. Interesting because our panel seems to be of two possible minds: Some panelists believe that Romney has better chance with Jewish voters because of his perceived “moderation” (compared to other GOP candidates), while other panelists believe that Gingrich’s image as the more (maybe most) vigorous supporter of Israel among the group of candidates should give him the edge with Jewish voters.

Thus, the average number for the two candidates is not much different, but the panel is split. Four panelists believe that Romney would fare better with Jewish voters, three believe it is Gingrich who has the edge, and one believes the two will do exactly the same.

As for the percentage predicted here, more than 30% should be considered an achievement. Yes, it is possible that Obama’s numbers will decline among all groups, and not just Jewish supporters. Nevertheless, for a Republican to break the 30% ceiling some 30 years after Ronald Reagan might be a sign that A. Jewish Americans are really becoming more conservative (as some have argued), or B. That Obama’s policies (on Israel and other matters) were truly hurting the Democratic ticket with one of the most staunchly Democratic groups in America.

Our panel, though, is not unanimously supportive of the 30% plus theory. The average of the two candidates (34.12% for Romney and 31.25% for Gingrich) is, well, just an average. Some panelists believe that Romney would do as badly as 20% and that Gingrich would do as badly as 21% with Jewish voters, while others believe that they have a chance to do as well as 50% (I’m skeptical, but in this project I’m merely the moderator). One should note that most of the panel does believe that Jewish support for Obama is about to decline, and that the 78% he is believed to have gotten back in 2008 will not be repeated (by the way, some experts that I tend to trust believe that his support was probably lower, closer to 75%).

 

And one paragraph about Jon Huntsman:

Jon Huntsman was quitting the race just as we were completing our survey. His final rank with our panel is pretty good: 6.55. The Israel Factor panel grew to like Huntsman’s candidacy. In this month’s survey he is fourth among all candidates. In fact, he was fourth among the candidates a month ago (in the December 2011 survey, Obama had 6.78 and Huntsman had 6.37). That he is doing so well with the panel is no big surprise, considering our panel’s centrist streak.

The Israel Factor panel predicts 34% of the Jewish vote for Romney Read More »

The Creative Impulse, Solitude and Genius – Anticipating Sabbatical Leave

Six years ago Daniel Pink published A Whole New Mind: Why Right-brainers Will Rule the Future. There he made the case that in business, manufacturing, construction, law, medicine, the sciences, education, religion, and the arts creativity will be the competitive difference that distinguishes one thing from another.

A key requirement of creativity is the need for solitude, as discussed by Susan Cain in her thoughtful piece this past weekend (“The Rise of the New Groupthink,” NY Times, Sunday Review, p. 1).

Ms. Cain writes:

“…most humans have two contradictory impulses: we love and need one another, yet we crave privacy and autonomy. To harness the energy that fuels both these drives, we need to move beyond the new groupthink and embrace a more nuanced approach to creativity and learning. Our offices should encourage casual, cafe-style interactions, but allow people to disappear into personalized, private spaces when they want to be alone. Our schools should teach children to work with others, but also to work on their own for sustained periods of time. And we must recognize that introverts…need extra quiet and privacy to do their best work.”

For me, almost nothing creative comes when I am working in my synagogue office. To make matters more difficult I deliberately leave my door open because I want to send the message that I am accessible and welcome all comers. Yes, I can get certain kinds of work accomplished even with this open-door policy, but almost nothing new or inspirational will come to me in that environment. Creativity happens for me at home when I’m alone studying, reading, thinking, and writing. Creative ideas also come during worship services, when I’m teaching, listening to others teach, and during pastoral counseling when two hearts, minds and souls are engaged with each other.

The novelist and Nobel laureate Pearl S. Buck wrote:

“The truly creative mind in any field is no more than this: A human creature born abnormally, inhumanly sensitive. To him… a touch is a blow, a sound is a noise, a misfortune is a tragedy, a joy is an ecstasy, a friend is a lover, a lover is a god, and failure is death. Add to this cruelly delicate organism the overpowering necessity to create, create, create—so that without the creating of music or poetry or books or buildings or something of meaning, his very breath is cut off from him. She must create, must pour out creation. By some strange, unknown, inward urgency she is not really alive unless she is creating.”

Though artists are special human beings whose sensitivity and talent are more exquisitely developed and tuned to their environment than the rest of us, we all have the capacity to create and that creativity can come in a multitude of ways. Yet, we are, most of us, deluged with too much noise, too much interaction with others, and we are plagued by intellectual, emotional, psychological, and spiritual fragmentation and exhaustion that stops creativity altogether. As individuals and a community, this state of being is deadly and self-destructive. We need to be able to encourage ourselves and our institutions to create environments that (as my teacher Rabbi Larry Hoffman has recently written) “catalyze the greatness within us and within our people by encouraging brilliance, supporting genius and rewarding excellence” in every arena.

To begin, we need to reclaim solitude as a necessary element of our lives, and then when we reemerge, energized and inspired, we need to find ways to share our gifts.

In two weeks beginning on January 29 my congregation has granted me Sabbatical leave that I will take in two pieces over the next 18 months. I will return from the first segment in mid-April. The remainder will be in the Fall and Winter of 2012-2013.

In this first period I will be traveling to Israel (leaving on February 1) to study on Ulpan in Jerusalem in order to improve my spoken Hebrew and comprehension. When I return home I look forward to quiet and uninterrupted time to read, study and write. I will most likely continue to post here from both Israel and home during that time.

I am grateful to Temple Israel of Hollywood for this time away.

The Creative Impulse, Solitude and Genius – Anticipating Sabbatical Leave Read More »

Highs and Lows at the Golden Globes

The HIGHS

Ricky Gervais, a bit tamer but delivering as expected, with a drink in one hand and expletives on his lips. He does his job, though, making sure nobody takes themselves too seriously.

Morgan Freemen is presented the Cecil B. DeMille Award, by Sidney Poitier and Helen Mirren, for his long and illustrious career. So well deserved and bringing some real depth to the evening. Now that he’s single again, he should hook up with Mirren and not just on-screen. They would make a very cute couple.

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie doing their duty as Hollywood’s leading couple – the picture of elegance and sophistication. They didn’t take home any Globes but definitely get the nod for the “true match” award. And that’s no small feat.

George Clooney, accepting for Best Actor for the Descendents, takes time to acknowledge fellow nominee and good friend, Brad Pitt, for his significant humanitarian contributions. Clooney never forgets what’s really important.

Octavia Spencer, receiving Best Supporting Actress for The Help, quotes Martin Luther King (whose day is today) “All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance.” Thanks, Octavia!

The LOWS

Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet and Martin Scorsese are remarkable and who doesn’t love them. But things get a little predictable and, frankly boring, when they are nominated. Like last night, they always win.

Michelle Williams, accepting Best Actress for My Week with Marilyn – well deserved! But she seemed a bit too preoccupied with thanking her daughter. Award shows are not really the place to acknowledge your family so profusely. You should do that in private.

Kelsey Grammar, using his acceptance speech to acknowledge his current and, newly pregnant, wife – seems like he was trying too hard to make the point. Was it just part of the media war with his ex?

Seth Rogan, talking about his “giant erection,” may have made his co-presenter, Kate Beckinsale, crack up, but it seemed just tacky and inappropriate. Love you Seth, but leave the dirty jokes to Gervais. 

Look for my upcoming reviews of the Oscar nominated films and my “deeply insightful” comments about our culture leaders this award season.

Highs and Lows at the Golden Globes Read More »

Tim Tebow is Jewish

“Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?”

That was the headline last week on a blog posted by New York Times public editor Arthur Brisbane.

Brisbane is The Times’ ombudsman; his job is to hold the paper accountable to journalistic standards and to act as its readers’ representative. The blog caused a lot of jaws to drop and tongues to wag. The reactions were either “duh” or “yikes.” Those in the first group were appalled that an arbiter of professional values was calling the very pursuit of accuracy into question; the others, pouncing on how the question was framed — “vigilante”? really? — read the headline as a sign that the propagandists charging “liberal bias” had succeeded in intimidating even The Times.

The headline, in other words, begged the question. Its implicit answer is that Times reporters should faithfully record what sources claim, and depict conflicting claims within the framework of he-said/she-said. An adroit reporter might juxtapose goofy claims with credible contrary evidence; an enterprising editor might assign a sidebar, within whose walls it’s acceptable to check facts. But by and large, especially in the realm of politics and public affairs, this conception of journalism casts us as arbitrators in a dispute between warring press releases.

What kind of journalism would empower us as citizens instead of blowing us off with, “We’ll have to leave it there”? It would have to step up to two responsibilities, each of which carries risks, but ducking either one is as good as giving up on what a free press can do for democracy.
Take my headline, above. When I say that Tim Tebow is Jewish, I’m doing two things. One is making a factual claim. The other is pursuing an agenda. Journalism’s job, I think, is to investigate both.

You can check whether Tim Tebow is Jewish (he’s not), just as you can check whether Barack Obama was born in America (yup); whether the Earth is 6,000 years old (nope); or whether the United States has the best health care system in the world (we’re No. 37). There’s a big chunk of rhetorical real estate to which the words “true” and “false” can be appropriately applied. People who say that climate change is a hoax are wrong. So are people who say that taxes have gone through the roof in California.

Some assertions, like Mitt Romney’s claim that Bain Capital netted 100,000 new jobs, can be checked in principle, but not in reality, because Bain refuses to release the data needed to confirm or disprove it. That 100,000 claim is the equivalent of an ad for a male enhancement pill; a consumer warning is the least the media could provide. A reporter or host who fails to call a falsehood false — on the spot, within the story, in real time — is committing journalistic malpractice.

But fact-checking is just one part of the journalist’s job. The other is to help citizens understand the intention of the speaker, to expose the purpose of an assertion. When I say Tim Tebow is Jewish, my goal is to grab your attention. I know it’s not true. I’m lying.

The mens rea of a speaker — the intent to deceive — is fair game for journalism. It’s not enough to say that Sarah Palin and Chuck Grassley are factually wrong about “death panels”; an analysis of a disinformation campaign belongs in the story (as The Times, to its credit, provided). The lies Dick Cheney sold The Times about Saddam’s uranium centrifuges cried out for political deconstruction. Good reporting on the charges about Barack Obama by Donald Trump, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich also requires reporting on the speakers’ marketing campaigns for TV ratings, lecture fees and book sales. Motives matter.

Here’s how that works, when it works: After Fox & Friends followed the money trail from “ground zero mosque” builder Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to Saudi prince and purported terrorist funder Al Waleed bin Talal, not only did Jon Stewart point out that Al Waleed is News Corp.’s largest shareholder; he also used that inconvenient truth to raise the key question about Fox News’ failure to mention the connection: Are they stupid, or evil? That’s not overstepping the bounds between journalism and partisanship; it’s reclaiming the ground that journalistic cowardice has ceded to partisanship. (And yes, I know that Stewart calls himself a “fake journalist,” not a real one. But if that’s fake, the Pulitzers need a new category.)

Sometimes motive is the most important part of a story. The significance of Mitt Romney’s reinvention of his record isn’t that he’s lying about the past; it’s that he will say and do anything to be president. He wants Tea Partyers to believe that he’s one of them, but he wants the rest of us think that he’s actually winking at us while pandering to them, and at the same time he wants the press to admire his feint-to-the-right/pivot-to-the-center strategy as a triumph in narrative-making. It’s not journalistically unprofessional to call Romney’s strategy cynical; it’s professionally derelict not to.

Stephen Colbert is also winking at us, but his meaning isn’t that we’re all in on the joke that money-fueled politics has become; it’s that our civic hair is on fire. When The Times’ public editor wonders whether verification is vigilantism, it’s a sign not only that the right’s 30-plus years of working the refs has succeeded, but also that the postmodern allergy to a category called “truth” is on the verge of being fatal to democracy. When Stewart and Colbert make motive the topic and analysis entertaining, I feel a tectonic shift — a promising one — in the ground of political storytelling.

Tim Tebow ain’t Jewish, but journalism ain’t stenography.

Tim Tebow is Jewish Read More »