Two brief passages in Adam Nagourney's above-the-fold "Political Memo" this morning stand as a salute -- or surrender? -- to the well-nigh comical perniciousness of modern American politics.
The far right, observed Nagourney from the vantage point of Friday's "Values Voters Summit" in Washington, is officially leaderless, idealess, and, let's face it, downright clueless as to how to cure its idealessness; it has suffered a "string of electoral defeats"; its base is much smaller and now so superannuated it's approaching the point of extinction -- yet, merely by making a public jackass of itself, toting Obama-Hitler signs and shouting down lawmakers, this "formerly dispirited base of the Republican Party" now possesses "new hope ... that it can still command public attention and influence policy in Washington."
Because it does command public attention. There is no subjunctive here, where there should be. This is not a matter of ill-tempered toddlers merely trying to gain the attention of adults and thereby shortcircuit the well-behaved product of responsible parenting. No, the right has their attention. The adults, the grownups, the parents, are all ears.
In fact give us more, they say in response to the right's political infantilism, and we'll feature it on the nightly news, we'll plaster it all over primetime cable, we'll fill our newspapers and overload the Internet with your shrill crap.
And when we weary of it and begin to ignore it, it'll be your job, ye cranky children of the far right, to escalate -- to conjure something even more outrageous, more contemptible, more unworthy of any democratic discourse whatsoever. Then we'll be all ears again.
And so the ever-intensifying cycles of civic degradation proceed.
Never mind that the actual population of the pre-adolescent rabble is so miniscule as to be nearly incalculable. When only about 60,000 boneheads turn out for a Million-Moron March in Washington, D.C. -- the wickedest epicenter of all left-wing unholiness -- at the frenzied urging of right-wing talksters with audiences reportedly in the devoted gazillions, then you know there's something amiss.
What we're hearing is the deafening sizzle of a steak the size of a poker chip. There is no real there, there, although what little is there looms in the media as a monstrously sized monolith of extreme discontent, which is growing, daily, even monstrously larger.
What's the evidence for this? Why, public opinion polls, of course -- which just as naturally only reflect what the media are covering. If the media report there's a groundswell of heated opposition to Obama out there, then Americans' famous herd mentality kicks in, and chimes in. They wouldn't want to be left out from what's popular. A year ago, and this held true even among many conservatives, it was popular to be pro-Obama; now it's popular to hang one's head in shame and mumble, Never again, it was all a hoax. (And make no mistake: the same herd mentality exists among a frightful percentage of the left.)
The conspicuous result has been that although Obama's job approval rating clings to about the 50 percent mark, it has taken a rather time-compressed nosedive. But one must work backward, through the media's mythomania, to understand the Why of it all: To date, Obama has merely done what he promised to do, yet huge swaths of the electorate have lost sight of that, mostly because the media have converted infinitesimally small gatherings of heated opposition -- chanting inanities such as "government takeovers" and "socialism" and "Hitlerism" -- into a noteworthy "movement."
Look, like most politics, this ain't rocket science. It's pretty simple. The far right -- especially given the concentrically strangulating demographics of the matter -- has evanesced largely into a phantom. Oh, it's there, of course, but not significantly more present, statistically speaking, than the far left. Yet the far right's voice has become exponentially outsized, thanks to -- you got it -- the media.
In relation to all this it was with trepidation that I read the other day, in the Washington Post, that "White House officials are engaged in an internal debate over how hard to hit back, even as they have grown increasingly aggressive in countering allegations [from the far right] they deem to be absurd." The cause of my trepidation wasn't their "internal debate," but that "increasingly aggressive" part, which seemed to signal that the White House would soon be wallowing in the mud with the detestable Glenn Becks of our dubious political culture.
And that, I'm afraid, would only lend more credibility not so much to the incredibly contemptible Glenn Becks of this nation, but to the media's obsessive coverage of them. The White House would be putting itself on a playing field with politically motivated borderline psychotics -- and now that's a real story of High Distraction.
Think what you like about MSNBC's Pat Buchanan and his rather curious historical interpretations, but also give the man credit for knowing how to street-fight, which is why Dick Nixon kept him so closely around. But Buchanan was a student, too, and perhaps the keenest lesson he absorbed, and has repeated numerous times since, from our 37th president was, "Don't ever fight down." It weakens one's superior stance.
Accordingly, if White House officials really want a war, I'd suggest they pick on an approximate equal: the Fourth Estate. True, Obama & Co. has made occasional references to its "big circuses," but there's been no organized resistance to, or hectoring of, the media's rather mindless and unmistakably irresponsible false sensationalism -- its blowing out of all proportion the actual potency of the far right, not to mention its casual conveyance of the far right's inane messages.
Remember, however much the electorate loves to consume the Fourth Estate's fantasies, it despises journalists almost as much as it despises politicians. So the White House would gain a natural ally in any war against the reckless media.
Pait and Switch
Thank god Obama is finally going to investigate Bush/Cheney.......I mean Acorn???
DUUUH, I meant BAIT and
DUUUH, I meant BAIT and switch...
Y'Also neglected to note the more than 80 Bushevik
US Atorneys still practicing 'their love' on the Murkin judicial system...
Obama continues to live down to my (very low) expectations...
The Best Defense Is A Good Offense
As opposed to the steady backpedaling of President Obama and the Democratic Congress from their campaign promises. Oh but that's just realpolitics? Yeh, at the cost of thousands of lives on account of so many millions of people who'll still be uninsured, should Congress pass the Baucus bill or facsimile thereof. There's history to back the above maxim, especially the soaring popularity of FDR for most of his four terms in office, despite his being relentlessly attacked by mainstream media. Why his popularity? Because Main Street knew that he was on their side. Not just because he said so, but because, he put his words into action, proposing and pushing Congress, among other things, to pass labor legislation, social security, work projects and bank regulations. Key to that were his fireside ("My fellow Americans...") chats that moved the public to press Congress to support his progressive goals. Likewise, President Obama could move this country forward by coming out for single payer, no ifs or buts, while at the same time slamming insurance companies in the manner that FDR attacked Wall Street. As a student of history he must know this, too. Yet he does nothing towards tapping into the groundswell of populism that his endorsement of Medicare for all would bring forth. What's the answer? That we rise up en masse and see to it that Congress passes and President Obama signs a single payer bill, whereupon, empowered by our victory over the powers that be, it'll be up to us the what sort of world.
limits of drawing historic parallels
I generally agree with you, CJ, although I'm not sure that the comparison with FDR is definitively applicable to our contemporary situation. FDR had the Great Depression, which was an undeniable crisis for the masses. I'm not sure that the general public now feels that way about our current state--at least not yet. And even if the severity of the current economic problems were as clear to the masses now as the Depression was to those in the 30's, it seems that our modern culture has many more sophisticated ways of distracting and dividing people than were available then. Yes, I wish our leaders would be more courageous--although I think Obama and his clever card-playing could be the best we can expect at this time--but there is no shortcut to taking matters into our own hands. There is enough passion for our cause out there, just not enough commitment and effort. Not yet...
misdirected energy against Obama "sell out"
I agree that a withering, full frontal assault on the blatantly propagandistic mainstream media is long overdue. However, I disagree with the commenters who beat up Obama and other Dem leaders as sell outs. Sure, it may look like that--to those who do not understand the nature of power. The oligarchs use the power of their money to maintain a stranglehold on our government and media: they can easily manufacture a damaging sh&t storm out of nothing if Obama goes further than they would like (remember all of the MSM-hyped "scandals" of the Clinton admin? His choice: cave or be destroyed...) Have any bloggers ever been faced with the prospect of having everything they have ever worked for obliterated because they angered the true power-brokers? Instead of beating up Obama--thus perversely serving the interests of the oligarchs--we should take over the Democratic party and grow the movement, exponentially expanding it into the mainstream populace. This is not a war of ideas. It is a base power struggle. You don't gain power by whining to politicians about what they should do: you make it so they don't have any other choice. That takes actual effort: not just blogging and writing letters, but committing time and effort to making calls, attending meetings and protests, and always working to connect with more average people--from the tuned-out masses--making them more aware and committed to building and wielding true people power. If we successfully counter the oligarchs' money-power, progressively-inclined leaders will be free to follow their ideals and consciences. Too idealistic? What else can ultimately work?
its the money
The problem with our "leaders" isnt fear of being destroyed by the media. They have been compromised by the same thing that corrupts all american politics. Its the money they need to get re-elected to keep their jobs and elite status. The only entities with that kind of money are corporations, and the mega rich. If the desire was there to do the peoples work, the congress would push for public financing of campaigns. If this was accomplished, candidates who want to represent the people could be elected, and the oligarchs would lose much of their power and influence. The trouble is that our democratic leaders and president would rather be members of the club than to fight it.
getting out of a Catch 22
I don't think we can assume all politicians--especially all progressive ones--are all about the money. I think most of them hate that they need to focus so much on soliciting campaign donations. The conditions you describe are necessary evils they have to navigate under the current system if they are to have any chance to do anything. If they buck the system by pushing ineffectually for public financing of campaigns, the system would easily snap them back in line or strike them down--with the main weapon being MSM-manipulation of the public's perceptions (although blackmail might be useful for some politicians: it's certainly easier...)
However, we can't say they would not respond to a true threat of people power because so far we as a people have not been able to mount a credible movement. If we swamp the Democratic primaries on all levels and put in candidates who pledge to make campaign and election reform a main priority, I think the movement would gain unstoppable momentum among the general public.
We have a once-in-a-century opportunity now, as the health insurance reform spectacle has made the corrupting corporate influence over our government very obvious and immediately relevant to everyone.
Pointing fingers at politicians and shaking our heads will not solve anything. The only thing that can ever work in the US is a people's takeover of the Democratic party. We have the numbers, we just need broader commitment and effort. NOW!
Work INSIDE the Democratic Party?
The Republicans and Democrats are wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate America. If you want real change you need to find another way. The two branches of the Corporate Party are rotten to the core and full of corruption. If you really want true people power you need to find a way to do it where the corrupt aren't always compromising your ideals. What you want and what the rich and powerful want are totally incompatible. The owners of both parties are doing quite well now and will never allow their political properties to be taken over by the unwashed masses.
YES --from INSIDE the Dem party: more expedient and efficacious
I think you make my case, SpikeHeels (great moniker, BTW). The oligarchy has it set up perfectly: 2 parties they own (one junkyard dog and one battered wife) in a two-party system. Whenever things go bad and people get upset, they just vote for the other party. We get the illusion of change, but the system is rigged: heads the oligarchs win, tails they win... The system is designed to make it almost impossible for third parties to succeed. That is why we TAKE OVER THE DEMOCRATIC party, overpower the corrupt forces within it. The oligarchy won't "allow it," but we won't give them a choice. The Republican brand is tattered, but the oligarchs will keep it propped up. If we take over the only other alternative (and make it serve the people again), those voters who are not tuned in but who are taken aback by the Republican ignorance and hatred will go with the sole alternative. Seems more workable than going the third party route--at least in this country.
"Obama's only done ....
... what he promised to do"????
Geeeeezus, PM.
Lay off the Hopium before you do any permanent damage ....
Using Wrong-wing Media Tactics?
Et tu, PM? You once were a smarter man than to try to plow us under with this snow job:
"To date, Obama has merely done what he promised to do..."
Oh? Why is Guantanamo still open? Why are there still two wars actively requiring even MORE Americans to fight them? Where are all those "shovel-ready" jobs that he had promised? Where is that single-payer health care? Why are DOMA and DADT still the policies of the land? Why is the Patriot Act something he seeks to expand instead of extinguish? Where is all that open transparency he promised? When do the members of the Cheney-Bush war gang depart for the Hague after the torture investigation? There's more - need I continue?
To date, Obama has done far more harm than good to those who elected him to office while he panders to the corporate elite in this nation. You do yourself a serious disservice to make his excuses for him while pointing the finger at the other guys.
You forgot..
The Obama government is still reading our emails and listening to our phone calls. They are defending the Bush regime and Bush policies in every way possible. We didn't get change, we got a third Bush term!
good list of examples neoconned
Anyone who states in print or otherwise that Obama has done what he promised to do, is either living in some parallel universe, or has lost the benefit of rational thought. The list of Obama sellouts could go on and on. Real change there!
The media is out of control!
Amend the Communications Act of 1996 to:
1) Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine
2) Force divestiture
3) No entity may own more than a total of 5 media properties in the US. Period (Media properties include: newspapers, wire services, magazines, TV stations, Radio stations, Broadcasting companies, computer companies, motion picture studios, talent agencies, software companies, entertainment production companies, cable systems, web pages, advertising agencies, publishing companies, stores that sell books, DVDs, music, broad and narrowband companies, web hosting sites and webpages)
4) Media companies may not have interlocking directorates. Screwpert Murdoch has NO business sitting on the board of directors of the ASSociated Press!
5) No media company may own more than one media property in a market
6) Advertisers are held responsible for the content of media they purchase advertising for
7) Newspapers, broadcasting companies and cable systems are responsible for the content they carry
8) All Media companies are taxed at 25% of their gross income, the funds derived will finance real public broadcasting with no corporate ties.
9) The airwaves belong to the American people, not to Murdoch, GE, Redstone or any other billionaire.
Every last one
of the things you recommend are vitally necessary to the rejuvenation of a relevant press.
Which is why THEY'LL NEVER FUUKIN HAPPEN! No way. Nada! Zero chance. Zilch. None...
because the rejuvenation of "the Press" is the furthest thing from the minds of the FCC, the Obamanauts, or anybody in Congress. Can you imagine the noise if GE were somehow to be compelled to sell NBC, and Murdoch were required to sell-off WSJ, etc? Disney and ABC?
Nobdy's got enough integrity--or money--to resist that onslaught...
Oh, yeah, and thank the sainted William Jefferson Clenis for the favor of the Comm Act of '95...
Finnaly
Finnaly you have put it on paper what has to be done to brake up the CORPORATE CONTROLED MEDIA until more people learn that controling the news Media is to controle the flow of Information. Braking up the CORPORATE CONTROLED MEDIA is the only way to get the flow Information moving.
no kidding
I posted on this subject 2 weeks ago. Your premise that the media is inflating the importance of these teabag idiots is correct, but dont try using their coverage as a convenient excuse for baracks tumbling poll numbers. His poll numbers are tanking because he is losing his liberal base. I think its safe to say we are people who are not influenced by the absurd corporate media. You try very hard to find justification for Obamas fall from grace, and point fingers in many directions except in the correct one. Its Obama who is responsible. He has backpedaled and outright flipflopped on so many important progressive issues, that he is no longer trusted by those who supported him most. These people are dissapointed and sad, and yes, angry at being sold a line of BS again. No its not the media that is doing in Obama. They are more than willing to help in his demise, but the fault lies with his sellouts and outright disrespecting of his base. Blaming the media for everything is an age old right wing tactic, your doing it now makes one wonder who is a tool.
Obama's pole numbers improved--
---on the strength of the 'lie yell'. Why? Because folks want the Democrat to succeed. To succeed in spite of himself! Yes, there is anger, disappointment, sellouts, recognition of mounting B.S., but folks want him to come out of this, give himself a kick in the butt and stop trying to walk in the oversized footprints of the former B.S.'er in chief-the smirking AWOL'er/disserter 'War-bush' and undo the crap he heaped on the Nation not build it higher.
Obama has to get us out of imperialistic Wars started with lies--putting a 'we have to Succeed' lable on them wont do it, he has to help the ones who lost their jobs not the ones who profited by that, he has to fix the near broken Health system not give selected rewards to the insurance companies et al that are breakig it. Whats so hard about seeing that?