Todays' Word


Disingenuous: Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating; Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated. (American Heritage Dictionary).

For some reason this word came to mind when I read a Letter to the Editor in this morning's Day:

When Will The Day Hold Lieberman To Task?

I have observed for many months the oft-repeated anguish of The Day's editorial board — most recently with the editorial titled “It's the war, stupid,” published Jan. 23 — with regard to President George W. Bush's policies in Iraq. I've followed with great interest The Day's repeated concerns, decrying the horror and misguided-ness of this president's foreign policy.

That that policy is the No. 1 issue — bar none — and has been for several years seems to be beyond question. And yet, who is the No. 1 cheerleader for this war? None other than The Day's enthusiastically endorsed Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman.

But nowhere can be found an editorial comment holding Sen. Lieberman to task for his pushing aside the Lieberman pledge to investigate the devastating government reaction to Katrina — a major American tragedy. Instead, Sen. Lieberman uses his Connecticut senator seat to pursue with great vigor the support, not only of the war in Iraq, but its escalation.

Nowhere can be found a single concern from The Day regarding Sen. Lieberman's Washington Post reprint supporting the escalation; an escalation that The Day condemns regularly. But The Day editorial board must be aware of this omission. The Day cannot even bring itself to assign the appropriate I (Independent) to Sen. Lieberman and continues with the erroneous D (Democrat).
It remains for The Day to hold the man whom they supported with not a modicum of concern — the most ardent and vocal supporter of a horrific tragedy in Iraq and the booster to spread that war to Iran — to account. Not to is the height of hypocrisy.

Art Costa
New London

What's disingenuous about this letter, you might ask. Nothing, actually. Here's the disingenuous part: the brief response from the Day:

Editor's note: Sen. Joseph Lieberman is registered as a member of the Democratic Party.

I was baptized as a Roman Catholic, which purportedly put an indelible mark on my soul. To the best of my knowledge, I have not been formally excommunicated, nor have I taken any overt steps to have my name erased from the baptismal rolls. Nonetheless, both I and and the Roman Catholic Church would have grounds to complain if the Day chose to describe me as a Catholic. The Editors of the Day are surely aware that Lieberman himself has, since his election, been honest about only one thing, that he should no longer be described as a Democrat.

And so, class, the Day is being disingenuous. The second definition appears to be the most applicable, but even the first applies.

But perhaps the Day is not being intentionally disingenuous. Perhaps, like Emerson's hobgoblin, it is merely being foolishly consistent. As Mr. Costa points out, it has studiously ignored Lieberman's post election turnabouts. Mr. Costa forgets one that is perhaps the most pernicious. Before the election, Lieberman allowed that war critics still qualified as Americans. Now that he's safely back in Washington (from which he will not return for another six years) he is back to besmirching the patriotism of those that oppose his dirty little war. (Fun video at the link) By the way, and somewhat ironically, among the traitors, it follows, are the Editors of the Day, who nonetheless continue to give him their tacit approval.

Why is this, you might ask. My own guess: There are certain segments of the media that see themselves primarily as upholders of the status quo. The Day is among this ever expanding segment of the traditional media. The Lamont insurgency represented a threat to that status quo, not because of Lamont's positions on the issues, but simply because he and his followers operated outside of the power structure with which the Day's Editors are comfortable. The Day backed Lieberman because the alternative would have required them to sanction the process that brought us Lamont, as much as Lamont himself. This they could never do, because they perceive that process as a threat to themselves. Better prolong a dirty war than have the world turn upside down and let the unwashed pull the levers of power.
Posted: Sunday - January 28, 2007 at 10:49 AM          

©