Judging a Book by Its Cover

---

---

At some point, most of us were admonished, as children, not to judge a book by its cover.

I must admit, not all clichés made sense to me, but that one did. I guess that's because my parents encouraged me to read from an early age.

I don't remember when I heard that cliché for the first time. But I had had enough experience with books that were insufficiently summarized on their covers — as well as books that were overhyped with their covers — to know that the content of a book can be much more — or much less — than it appears to be on the outside.

The lesson is that appearances can be deceiving.

I would have thought that Republicans, of all people, had been given ample reminders of this in recent years.

The last Republican president, after all, pledged to be "a uniter, not a divider," but his approval ratings at the end of his eight-year presidency suggested that he had been a divisive influence on the country.

When the costliest natural disaster in modern times struck New Orleans 3½ years ago, the federal government's response — under the leadership of that Republican president — was criticized for being too slow and inadequate — in spite of the fact that FEMA's reputation, in the Clinton years, was one of swift, efficient reactions to disasters.

And sometimes people just plain miss the point.

I remember, about a dozen years ago, when "Schindler's List" was first shown on network TV. It was carried by NBC, and it was shown unedited, virtually uncensored and with almost no commercial interruption. Many fundamentalist and evangelical Christian groups objected to the airing of the film, complete with nudity, violence and objectionable language.

Director Steven Spielberg addressed the viewing audience before and after the film was shown. He urged parents to decide which of their children were old enough and mature enough to comprehend what was being shown, and he encouraged parents to watch the film with their children and discuss it with them afterwards.

It always seemed to me that anyone who watched the film would understand that the nudity wasn't shown gratuitously. The Nazis used nudity as a weapon — a way of demonstrating their control over their prisoners. The violence was used with no apparent discretion, just as it was throughout the Holocaust. That point was made time and time again in the film.

And coarse language has always been part of war.

Those three elements were crucial parts of the story. And, as I recall, viewers were warned that they had not been edited out of the presentation. Anyone who watched the film knew — or should have known — what to expect. But that didn't prevent some people, including a Republican congressman (now a senator) from Oklahoma, from complaining about it after the fact.

Fortunately, that congressman was forced to apologize for his remarks after coming under fire from Democrats as well as his fellow Republicans.

That incident, while perhaps not quite a case of judging a book by its cover, certainly is related.

I've been thinking about this in recent days, especially since hearing House Republican leader John Boehner tell his colleagues that no one had bothered to read the 1,100-page stimulus bill (a clip from his speech is shown above). Not surprisingly, the vote in both houses of Congress went straight down party lines. No Republicans supported it in the House, and only three Republicans supported it in the Senate — in spite of the president's plea for bipartisanship.

If Boehner is correct and no one read the stimulus bill before voting on it, then everyone in the House (and, presumably, the Senate) is guilty of judging a book by its cover. Republicans opposed it primarily because it was a Democratic initiative. Democrats supported it because it was promoted by a Democratic president.

In general practice, I would agree with Boehner and say that every bill should be read thoroughly before being voted on. But that is a standard that is seldom, if ever, followed.

And, in times of severe crisis, there usually isn't time for deliberative action. On Dec. 8, 1941, how many members of Congress were eager to take their time in discussing the pros and cons of declaring war on Japan?

Boehner has been in Congress for nearly two decades. He should need no reminders of the way things are done in Washington.

Nor should it be necessary to remind him how he and his fellow Republicans bullied and badgered congressional Democrats until many agreed to give George W. Bush the authority to order the invasion of Iraq and to support the "Patriot Act."

The haste with which the "Patriot Act" was pushed through Congress was criticized in Michael Moore's film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." In the film, Moore rented an ice cream truck and drove it through Washington while reading the legislation over a loud speaker.

But the truth is that it wasn't really handled any differently than any other legislation, although its proponents made every effort to suggest that a crisis situation existed — whether one did or not.

There should be no doubt that a crisis exists today. It is not a military crisis. It is an economic crisis. Immediate action was — and still is — needed. More will be needed in the months, if not years, to come.

Both houses of Congress chipped away at elements of the original plan before the final version was passed. Someone clearly read parts of it.

But most, like Boehner, insisted on judging the book entirely by its cover.

I have to wonder if that was a service or a disservice to the nation.