Silly Season Commences

Is the world getting crazier, or am I just getting crankier?

by Patrick J. Shanahan
06/01/05

Winter is a somber time, with the grimness of the days reflected in the seriousness of our actions. Winter is when things “get done.” School is in session, Congress is in session, businesses hum along at top energy and focus.

When the weather starts to break, some of that national seriousness begins to dissipate. Schools let out. Colleges commence. Congress goes on break. Cubicle dwellers start to take Fridays off with increasing frequency. Silly Season comes along.

One can gauge Silly Season by keeping an eye on the news. Every year about this time I start to feel cranky. This always catches me by surprise, as I don’t expect to feel cranky just as the weather starts to get nice. I have figured out that this is a result of my lack of patience for the ridiculous running headlong into Silly Season.

One of the prime annual indicators of Silly Season is the “Charity Walk.” You know what I mean: the annual events - which are usually held in the spring - that promise to end Cancer/AIDS/Multiple Sclerosis/Name Your Plague by encouraging suburbanites to walk ‘round and ‘round in circles. Now, I am just as much in favor of curing cancer as the next guy. If you want me to contribute to a charity seeking cancer cures, come ask me for twenty bucks. I would be delighted to contribute. What I will not do is “sponsor” you as you walk/bike/hike/climb or swim for your cause. This is fundamentally unserious stuff. Why is it necessary for you to walk in order for me to contribute? The answer is simple: It is necessary so that you can feel as if you are actually doing something to make a difference. You’re not, of course. You’re not curing cancer. You're walking around in circles. You may be raising some cash, but you could be doing that just as effectively without lacing up a sneaker.

This entire ethos of showing caring, of demonstrating moral superiority, by walking around in circles has become completely embedded in middle class America. It is nothing more than silly weak-tea suburban liberalism, in which the appearance of caring becomes the highest virtue. One could argue that it does no harm, so why make a fuss. Well, first, because I’m getting cranky in my old age, that’s why. Second, if we let it become the barometer of “how much we care,” then we will end up diverting resources and energy away from other things that might actually make a difference.

For some reason, springtime also brings with it feminist brouhahas of various sorts. Whether this be manifested by protests of Augusta National’s membership policy, or by gasps of wonder at the accomplishments of some female standout, there is almost always something a-brewing. And it is really very, very silly. Which makes sense. If one starts from the premise that men and women are exactly the same except for external physical differences, then silliness is inevitable. If, despite clear differences in every observable aspect of life (including DNA), one believes that all male/female distinctions are nothing more than social constructs, how can anything serious ever come out of your mouth?

The hue and cry accompanying the recent Indianapolis 500 Top 5 finish by a female race driver is a wonderful example. Now, she did a wonderful thing, and I am happy for her. But to treat this as somehow a “victory for women everywhere” (which is all I have seen in the media) is absurd. If one accepts the premises that a) men on the whole are more athletic than women, and b) Indy car racing is an athletic exercise, then two things follow: men will overwhelmingly dominate in Indy Car racing, and a very, very small number of women will be competitive in Indy Car racing. This is the Bell Curve in action. To spin it as anything different is silliness of the highest order. If you wish to argue my premises, let’s have at it. But to accept them and still act as if this was the second coming of the civil rights movement defines you as a person not to be taken seriously.

Time and space do not permit me to describe at length the full list of symptoms of this year’s Silly Season. But I would like to touch on one more. The recent “compromise” on ending the filibusters against President Bush’s judicial nominees is silliness of the highest order. We know it was silly because it “solved” a problem that didn’t exist, did so in a way that is guaranteed to fail, and was clearly calculated to paint the participants as noble and “above the fray.” A veritable Trifecta of absurdity. This is what I think is so jarring to so many of us. It made no sense on its own terms.

What problem were the compromisers seeking to solve? The Republicans were going to seek a rules clarification as to whether Senate filibuster rules applied to Presidential nominations. Common sense, the Constitution and more than 200 years of Senate tradition strongly implied that they did not and do not. Those who speak of “saving” the traditions of the Senate are full of transparent hooey. The tradition of the Senate has been to never filibuster nominees. Those who speak of saving “comity” in the Senate are even more ridiculous. If your idea of public service is making sure that Democrats like you, you have chosen the wrong profession. Civilized tension is a natural byproduct of seriousness. Much like the charity-walkers, nothing would be easier for our elected representatives than to walk in endless circles, patting each other on the back, oozing bipartisan spirit while absolutely nothing of substance gets accomplished.

I suppose I ought to learn to be less cranky. To “go with the flow,” as they say. I have never had a long fuse for silliness, and each spring it gets shorter and shorter. Oh well. We need cranky guys like me around to keep things honest. I just wish a few of us had jobs in the mainstream media.