I.H.S. LibertyGuide Reviews Attention Deficit Democracy

The Institute for Humane Studies’ LibertyGuide website reviewed Attention Deficit Democracy. Samuel DeConio, who is finishing a doctorate in political science, covered many of the book’s subjects in his article.   I appreciate the time and effort he took to read and review A.D.D.  His review is very thorough on several aspects of the book that have not received much ink in other reviews.

For purposes of keeping this blog lively, I’ll quote portions of the review where DeConio differed with the book:

Bovard’s discussion of Franklin Roosevelt’s lying to the American public about his attempts to draw the United States into World War II appears to assume that such lies, and the ignorance that enabled them to be effective, were necessarily a bad thing, and merely confirmation that politicians systematically engage in misleading deception…. Roosevelt clearly lied to the public regarding his attempts to propel American into World War II, but it is difficult to see why this was a bad thing.

****

Though Bovard criticizes Lincoln for having “contempt” for the Bill of Rights and engaging in other actions, such as jailing people without charges, and shutting down newspapers and state legislatures, as violations of liberty, there is no discussion of whether it is appropriate to deplore Lincoln’s actions as violations of liberty, especially given that the institutions he suppressed were committed to maintaining egregious violations of African Americans’ personal liberty.

*** 

Bovard seems to argue that political elites have far more control over controlling media coverage of scandals than seems to be the case. In his discussion of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal that “the only thing necessary for a successful coverup is for the president . . . to continuously proclaim that everything will be investigated, and then, months later, to proclaim that everything has already been investigated”( pg. 146). Yet, this seems far too facile as it involves a series of claims that need far closer documentation than what has been given. Indeed, political elites who were associated with the Abu Ghraib scandal did not feel as if they could simply cover up the event. For example, Donald Rumsfeld actually attempted to resign after the scandal broke, but President Bush refused to accept his resignation. This kind of action is hardly consistent with a depiction of elites who believe that they can effectively control any scandal simply by having the president make public statements, and may indicate that the media play a far more independent role than Bovard suggests.

****

Hmmmmm….   I wonder how Seymour Hersh (who did the great piece in the June 25  New Yorker on Rumsfeld’s machinations on Abu Ghraib) and Barton Gellman (the Washington Post reporter who nailed Cheney’s role in spawning and perpetuating U.S. government torture despite court defeats) would score that last paragraph….