Thursday, April 23, 1998
Columnist doesn’t play in politicians’ tricky games
BOOK: Molly Ivins keeps remarks fair on ‘Rodney Dangerfield of
presidents’
By J. Jioni Palmer
Daily Bruin Senior Staff
Reading "You Got to Dance with Them What Brung You: Politics in
the Clinton Years," by Molly Ivins feels like riding shotgun in a
rickety pickup truck barreling down a curvaceous back-country road.
It’s the kind of trip with winding roads that feels long, yet the
scenery is panoramic and the company is good. With just so much to
see, the destination is forgotten and the only thing left to do
just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Ivins, a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, writes
columns that are syndicated in over 200 newspaper across the
country. "You Got to Dance" compiles columns from the Star Telegram
and other publications written between 1994 and 1996.
Ivins’ writing, clear and concise, fills her columns with witty
sarcasm and folksy speech. Ivins shoots straight from the hip with
honest observations and criticisms of the politicians and the games
that they play.
"The good news is that Pat Buchanan – aside from being a racist,
sexist, xenophobic, homophobic anti-Semite – is a fairly likable
human being," Ivins writes. "I mean, you’d much rather have a beer
with him than Bob Dole or Phil Gramm."
Despite her strong contempt for the politics of certain
individuals, she does not allow herself to stoop to the level of
personal attacks. At every opportunity Ivins strives to maintain a
sense of journalistic impartiality, despite her position as an
ardent and unapologetic liberal.
"It is a far more important obligation (of a journalist) to root
out official lies than it is to report on the private behavior of
public officials," Ivins writes. "All a journalist can do is cover
the public realm; judgement of private lives is left to
biographers, spouses and God."
Much of Ivins work is devoted to, what she would call, telling
the truth about the Clinton presidency. Clinton, who Ivins refers
to as the "Rodney Dangerfield of presidents," deserves to be cut a
little slack.
"He is so constantly and so casually abused, vilified,
dismissed, mocked and generally treated as a punching bag by every
snide little twerp with a press pass that it’s a little starling to
realize that his approval ratings continue to ride in the
mid-50s."
Ivins gives the impression that Clinton is not that bad of a
President, after all, and credits him as being one of the most
skilled politicians ever. She defends Clinton with the passion of a
mother bear protecting her cub.
However, Ivins remains clear in thought, not blind in
acknowledging the president’s shortcomings. Her commitment to the
liberal principals and progressive values is not compromised for
the sake of politics.
"While many of my fellow liberals washed their hands of Clinton
years ago, as a longtime student of the Texas legislature, where
progress comes only in the smallest increments, I stayed with him
until the summer of 1996," Ivins writes.
"That’s when he signed the welfare ‘reform’ bill. My
expectations of Democratic politicians exceed my expectations of
Republicans by only the smallest of margins; but real Democrats
don’t hurt children, Clinton."
The people comprise the government, Ivins notes. Obvious? Overly
simplistic? However, when put in the context with the current
right-wing assault on the government, Ivins’ comments become all
the more profound.
"The phenomenal torrent of rhetoric unleashed by the Republican
right lately on the theme that Government Is the Enemy plays rights
into the hands of the haters," Ivins writes. "The more people talk
about government as Them, some unreachable, uncontrollable Other,
the more extreme the haters get."
America, according to Ivins, is dangerously close to being
paralyzed by right-wing "nuts" who oversimplify very complex
issues. Take for instance the Republican claim that poor families
were encouraging their children to fake disabilities in order to
qualify for more public assistance.
Why, you ask? Perhaps the better question is what would lead a
person to that conclusion. It seems that the number of people
receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) aid that goes to poor
children with crippling conditions, had skyrocketed. Fraud and
fakery must be in the air. Or is it?
Ivins points out that had the Republicans investigated why the
numbers of SSI recipients increased, they would have uncovered that
there was a bureaucratic backlog, due to years of neglect from
Reagan and Bush. Rather than looking for the smart policy answer,
the politicians sought the easy political fix.
Ivins notes, "When I think of the love, care, devotion and
patience I have seen lavished on disabled children by their
struggling parents, and then I read Gingrich’s cruel, ugly, wicked
distortions, I want to slap somebody, too."
Ivins writes with passion and fairness. Her ideas, although they
may not be welcomed in many circles, are a must read for anyone
interested in the state of American political discourse. At the
very least Ivins will force the reader to consider a different
viewpoint, and, who knows, maybe they’ll have a change of
heart.