Another Tack: Ocean of schmaltz
Sarah Honig, THE JERUSALEM POST Jan. 12, 2006
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136361067295&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

A president died when I was a first-grader. Learning that on the day of the
funeral there'd be no school, I literally jumped for joy and wished the
great man would "die every day from now on." My mom lectured me sternly but
I remained happy. I wasn't exceptionally callous. All my six-year-old peers,
just weeks into our scholastic careers, were likewise delighted. So much for
the inherent sensitivity and vulnerability of youngsters.

But to hear incessant media chatter, Ariel Sharon's brain hemorrhage has
traumatized Israel's juveniles, who need particularly delicate handling so
their underage psyches won't be too desperately affected by what befell the
father of the nation. Children, expounded solicitous advice-dispensers,
can't always verbalize their feelings. Therefore they should be encouraged
to draw pictures to give vent to their emotions or alternatively resort to
music to express their inner torment and insecurities.

And not only inconsolable tykes dread losing the exalted collective father.
Newspapers inaugurated Web sites where readers could communicate with the
comatose premier and e-mail their ruminations, wishes and tributes. Choice
entries were inevitably featured in print and solemnly recited by
sanctimonious radio and TV talking heads.

The populace evidently reveled wallowing in this bottomless ocean of
schmaltz and saccharine. It was a melodramatic kitsch-fest rivaled only by
post-Rabin assassination de-rigueur mawkishness, which could at least
superficially be construed as arising from genuine shock at the suddenness
of the historical upset.

Not so in this instance. Sharon, though recklessly obese, had reached - in
relatively good health up until last month - the average life expectancy of
an Israeli male. A medical crisis in his case could hardly have been a bolt
from the blue. Indeed, if anything
confounded logic it's the apparent assumption that he'd carry on for another
term or two.

SHARON'S OWN braggadocio contributed to the conceit. His pose was central to
political hype aimed at convincing the electorate that it's entrusting its
fate in capable hands for the long haul.

The deception was self-serving for Sharon and his political entourage, while
satisfying a grassroots cop-out desire to count on a larger-than-life
guardian, one who'd make all angst disappear and who had all the answers.

The masses hankered for paternalism, and Sharon was all too eager to fill
the role assigned him by popular demand. It allowed him freedom of action
and freedom from scrutiny. He could trample the basic democratic rules of
our game - or even change them willfully.

And the citizenry, except for pesky skeptics, generally cheered. Folks not
only wanted a father, but a strong one, a no-nonsense layer-down-of-the-law,
someone who knew his mind and brooked no insubordination. A father like that
makes his charges feel safe because he sees things others don't, as Sharon
stressed by way of explaining why he reneged on his own electoral platform.

The need to maintain the air of invincibility and unchallengeable wisdom
accounted for why Sharon and his cronies pooh-poohed his warning stroke,
commissioned an upbeat medical opinion, demanded a speedy release from
hospital and allowed the patient to venture so far from his caregivers. This
wasn't mere hubris; it was cynical preference for short-term political
gain - hence the deliberate obfuscation during the first cerebral incident.

SINCE THE devastating aftermath couldn't be denied, the other politically
exploitable card was subsequently played. If earlier it was best that we
discover as little as possible about our national father's condition, we
were later inundated with an indecent deluge of detail.

There was no real need for diagnostic minutiae. Only the big picture
mattered, and it was obvious enough - the father cannot continue to take
care of his clinging dependents. All else was downright undignified. Would
Sharon really want bulletins about his urine output endlessly rehashed on
air? It's closer to voyeurism than respectful concern.

Nevertheless, again political considerations overrode propriety. Though no
longer vigorous, a sanctified Sharon could elicit sympathy. The object now
was to market a hallowed legacy to voters deprived of their autocratic
dynamic dad. Obliging opinion-makers occasionally even spuriously extolled
him as one of Zionism's founding fathers (no less). Those not conversant
with facts could almost surmise that without Sharon there'd have been no
State of Israel, that without him we're doomed. Studiously avoided was
attention to the invective hurled at him while he sojourned on the "wrong"
side of the political divide - from the vantage point of this country's
journalistic, judicial and cultural establishments.

Had he not expelled 9,000 Jews from their homes and destroyed 25 thriving
villages, the deification of Sharon would have never begun. Had he not of
late performed a key function in weakening the Jewish state, he'd never have
earned the world's indefatigable interest in his vital signs.

Shamelessly manipulative media whip up whatever hysteria they deem useful
for their agenda. They manufacture and magnify a sense of orphanhood, then
boost the image of the heir-apparent, urging we transfer our allegiance to
him. That's what Father would have decreed, and what we owe him. Our final
token of loyalty is to submit to Sharon's sly successor with full filial
obedience.

Quintessential wheeler-dealer Olmert is now our surrogate father.

In our dysfunctional family, critical thinking is discouraged lest we
realize we're in an abusive situation. It's immeasurably more expedient to
busy immature know-nothings - of all ages - with drawing pictures, singing
mournful songs, composing sentimental tripe and seeking fleeting walk-on
glory in the epic soap opera promoted by calculating spin-masters.