American Idol: What Washington Should Learn From Judge Steven Tyler
I confess. I'm hooked on American Idol. After teaching a business planning class on Wednesdays, I beat it across the lake to join my wife for our weekly fix. It's kind of a family thing. We each have our favorite contestant. My oldest granddaughter adores Lauren. My seven-year old grandson went to his school career day dressed as James. My wife's guy is Scotty. And Haley locked up my vote with "The House of the Rising Sun."
But hands down my favorite personality on the show is judge Steven Tyler. Truth is, I don't understand half of what this guy says. Much of his vocabulary just escapes me. But what I most enjoy about Tyler is his wonderful capacity - and his willingness - to occasionally blow off his fellow judges by announcing to the world that they are flat out wrong. The intellectually honest is refreshing and powerful. No mincing of words. No finessing. No beating around the bush. Nothing disrespectful, mean-spirited or contentious. The judges are always all on the same team, trying to support each other, and do what's best for the show. And to Tyler, that means publicly going on the record when he thinks a fellow colleague is off base. He has a variety of creative ways to succinctly and emphatically make his point. One of my favorites was the night he turned to fellow judge Randy Jackson and just said, "If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong."
Imagine a Washington where many have developed this Tyleresque will and ability to publicly call out a colleague who has gone too far. I am not referring to daily attacks on those across the aisle, the never-ending partisan mudslinging we've all come to expect. No, what I would so like to see is people calling a spade a spade when one of their own steps over the line. Just like Tyler does when he thinks the show will be improved with some candid honesty about his fellow judges.
Take, for example, when President Obama recently fabricated scenarios to demonize Paul Ryan's budget proposal. It bordered on being shameful. The goal, of course, was to score some cheap political points at Ryan's expense. And it worked. It mattered little that the comments mislead the uninformed, hyped partisan tensions, and demonstrated little regard for accuracy and truthfulness. Various talk show hosts and Republicans had a field day attacking the President for the comments, but all that was to be expected. These partisan attacks just magnified the President's disdain for Ryan's ideas. The episode demonstrated, once again, that stepping over the line often pays off in politics. That's why its standard operating procedure for many players on both sides of the aisle.
Now imagine if a group of fellow Democrats who support the President had stepped up and, in true Steven Tyler fashion, publicly stated, "Mr. President, if we agreed with those comments, we'd all be wrong." That would have had some real impact.
Why would they do such a thing? Ideally, because they understand that the whole process ultimately suffers when the uniformed are misled, partisan differences are unduly hyped, and accuracy and truthfulness are tossed out the window. In Tyler's world, it's "not good for the show." Picture what such non-partisan intellectual honesty would do over time to erode public cynicism and clean up the daily rhetoric. The political garbage would quickly be exposed. The media would have a much tougher time leveraging that garbage for its own ends. And many fewer players would be tempted to play fast and loose with the truth.
I acknowledge that I've now moved deep into fantasy land. Political naiveté in the extreme. But, oh, it's so tempting to imagine what Steven Tyler might say.
But hands down my favorite personality on the show is judge Steven Tyler. Truth is, I don't understand half of what this guy says. Much of his vocabulary just escapes me. But what I most enjoy about Tyler is his wonderful capacity - and his willingness - to occasionally blow off his fellow judges by announcing to the world that they are flat out wrong. The intellectually honest is refreshing and powerful. No mincing of words. No finessing. No beating around the bush. Nothing disrespectful, mean-spirited or contentious. The judges are always all on the same team, trying to support each other, and do what's best for the show. And to Tyler, that means publicly going on the record when he thinks a fellow colleague is off base. He has a variety of creative ways to succinctly and emphatically make his point. One of my favorites was the night he turned to fellow judge Randy Jackson and just said, "If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong."
Imagine a Washington where many have developed this Tyleresque will and ability to publicly call out a colleague who has gone too far. I am not referring to daily attacks on those across the aisle, the never-ending partisan mudslinging we've all come to expect. No, what I would so like to see is people calling a spade a spade when one of their own steps over the line. Just like Tyler does when he thinks the show will be improved with some candid honesty about his fellow judges.
Take, for example, when President Obama recently fabricated scenarios to demonize Paul Ryan's budget proposal. It bordered on being shameful. The goal, of course, was to score some cheap political points at Ryan's expense. And it worked. It mattered little that the comments mislead the uninformed, hyped partisan tensions, and demonstrated little regard for accuracy and truthfulness. Various talk show hosts and Republicans had a field day attacking the President for the comments, but all that was to be expected. These partisan attacks just magnified the President's disdain for Ryan's ideas. The episode demonstrated, once again, that stepping over the line often pays off in politics. That's why its standard operating procedure for many players on both sides of the aisle.
Now imagine if a group of fellow Democrats who support the President had stepped up and, in true Steven Tyler fashion, publicly stated, "Mr. President, if we agreed with those comments, we'd all be wrong." That would have had some real impact.
Why would they do such a thing? Ideally, because they understand that the whole process ultimately suffers when the uniformed are misled, partisan differences are unduly hyped, and accuracy and truthfulness are tossed out the window. In Tyler's world, it's "not good for the show." Picture what such non-partisan intellectual honesty would do over time to erode public cynicism and clean up the daily rhetoric. The political garbage would quickly be exposed. The media would have a much tougher time leveraging that garbage for its own ends. And many fewer players would be tempted to play fast and loose with the truth.
I acknowledge that I've now moved deep into fantasy land. Political naiveté in the extreme. But, oh, it's so tempting to imagine what Steven Tyler might say.
Dwight Drake is an experienced planning lawyer, law professor, and business owner. He teaches business, tax and planning course at the University of Washington School of Law. He is the author of the PlainTalk Planning online educational service ( http://www.plaintalkplanning.com ). For more information about Professor Drake and access to his other works, go to http://www.drakeplaintalkplanning.com.
posted by bloggerking at 10:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home