Two Daily Media Cliches We Don't Understand: Bipartisanship and Socialism

Submitted by mark karlin on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 7:54am.

EditorBlog

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

By Mark Karlin

BuzzFlash doesn't understand a lot of media cliches, such as the word liberal. What does that mean? That you're not a racist, that you accept other people? Then is conservative a term that means you are a racist -- well, nowadays as conservatism has morphed into winger pathological hysteria, perhaps.

But media cliches often are used to pigeon hole vast swaths of public policy considerations and political strategies that can't be reduced to a category of supporters or naive notions of "conventional wisdom."

Take "bipartisanship" for instance. We have a two-party system in which individuals are elected by drawing contrasts -- increasingly harsh in the age of the nutters -- between themselves and the parties. Since Obama was elected by a landslide and the Democrats have large majorities in both houses, doesn't that mean one side won big and the other lost big. Are football games or any sport 'bipartisan"? Isn't the goal to win for your team?

Why does the corporate media and inside D.C. "villager" thinking paint "bipartisanship" as a vital goal for Democrats, but knife in the back "go it alone" politics acceptable for Republicans? And the Republican neo-Confederacy ideology lost big in the last election. In fact, if you look at the actual Congressional situation, it is the block of Republican senators and some Republican Democratic Senators from states with very small populations who are the main obstacles to moving America forward instead of backwards -- small populations and the South.

So why would one be "bipartisan" with a party who whips its base into mass hysteria based on demagogic lies? That's not "bipartisan"; it's accepting the world view of a psychotic.

And what the Hell is Socialism? With the exception of North Korea and Cuba (which is changing), almost all the nations of the world have mixed economies. Even Sweden is a nation which provides many government services, but is definitely capitalistic. The use of the word "Socialism" by the GOP and the corporate mainstream media is simply raising a rhetorical red flag that doesn't deal with the issues at hand.

As an indication of how nonsensical the use of the word "Socialism" has become, BuzzFlash received an e-mail from GOP Chairman Michael Steele rallying to the defense of Medicare and warning Democrats to keep their hands off of it. But isn't this the Chairman of the same party that derides a government option or single payer health insurance as "Socialism"? Then what is Medicare? We're confused.

Actually, even in Medicare, seniors are allowed their choice of doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc. It's not government run healthcare -- there are no government doctors and nurses (although there are in the VA system, which is another program the Republicans officially support while deriding in concept, even though it is a true government operated healthcare system). Medicare is merely a government health insurance program for the elderly; it is not government provided medical care.

Ironically, the GOP could only dishonestly use Medicare as a wedge issue to oppose the government insurance option because seniors like it so much. Furthermore, the GOP fought its passage and has considered it "Socialized" medicine since its inception. But if Medicare is "Socialistic" and therefore Satanic to the GOP, why is the Republican Party sending out e-mails to seniors to assure them that the GOP will defend them from Medicare cuts?

How could one be "bipartisan" with such brazen liars, hypocrites and opportunists? Beats me.

Of course, behind "bipartisanship" and red meat claims of "Socialism" are the corporations and their lobbyists who are pulling the strings on the show in D.C., using the corporate mainstream media to turn falsehoods into truths by endlessly repeating them to a confused base that is brainwashed by television shills such as Beck and Hannity (not to mention Limbaugh and other talk radio hate hosts).

What the White House and the Democrats in the Senate need to do is toss the words "bipartisanship" and "Socialism" into the shredder and start advancing the nation by using common sense as a standard, not the warped notion of a "mythical center" that only exists in the minds of the D.C. corporate sponsored pundit class.

A little common sense would tell you that given Medicare's success and popularity, a government health insurance option -- or even the ultimate dream of single payer -- would go a long way toward reducing healthcare costs bloated by a for-profit insurance system. And polls indicate a vast majority of Americans support a government insurance option, even though the corporate media and the D.C. villagers claim it is outside the "centrist" ring of acceptability.

American seniors like Medicare; Americans want a government option. The "Change" Obama promised would be to reduce the costs of our healthcare system dramatically by eliminating the profitability from the system, which adds nothing to healthcare quality, just hundreds of billions of dollars going to CEOs and shareholders.

That's just common sense, not meaningless cliches.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version

This article is to my

Submitted by goodxo.com on Sun, 08/15/2010 - 7:37pm.

This article is to my feelings, thanks for your sharing, hoping to see more useful content, refueling,We are a Chinese supplier, we provide the best bag bag and clothes,ghd Moncler clothing P90x ghd Moncler Jackets Men Moncler Jackets Women

chanel bags

Submitted by Miu Miu bags on Wed, 07/28/2010 - 2:30am.

If you appetence to go big time and achieve big money fast and easy, afresh you should get abounding Miu Miu bags. Rather than get 18-carat online autograph that would be abounding at an absonant price, Miu Miu Handbags online will crop bigger address margins and achieve academy profits. But afore you exhausted into the abounding Miu Miu bag sale supplier.

Replica Handbags are precise copies of the original brand Handbags, eg:LV Handbags of creativity is endless, LV 2010 is bound to make your mood, enjoying to spend a vacation.It is expected that by 2015 the growing middle class and the balenciaga handbags sale rich will make China the largest consumer.Penelope accessorized a beautiful outfit by Prada bags and Prada handbag Wyeth Designs with a coordinating beige chanel Classic flap handbag with gold hardware and chanel bags are all very unique and luxury .one of the world's most famous design handbags brand and more at the cheapest prices is the Marc Jacobs Medium.Gucci is the leading name in luxury and style. With its outstanding quality, exceptional beauty, and the finest Italian craftsmanship, Gucci bags offers you only the best of the best. ... so even connoisseurs can't make the differences between replicas and real ones.they are recognized as masterpieces of art all over the world. Our Replica Handbags can give you the same quality for better price.

Mulberry Handbags ia a famous UK-based design for its creative and quality leather products.Mulberry Roxanne is famous for its uniting style and sophistication,stand out of greatest detailing. Also Mulberry Elgin have set new trend and become much desired objects to possess. So what are you waiting for?!

Would love to see more designs. vey cool!

Submitted by www123 on Mon, 07/19/2010 - 9:23pm.

How many times will Liberals keep supporting GOP Frames.....

Submitted by Freedem on Fri, 09/04/2009 - 2:43am.

Centrist roadkill For so many years the GOP , by constant repitition, have labled Liberals as something that they never were and for ten years we have fought back by saying "I don't care what your definition is. This is what I am". After Bush and particularly after Katrina and then the Meltdown, the idea that there needs to be some accountability has gotten respectability again, though the empathy part is still viewed with suspicion.

Now being called a liberal does not have enough horror, so the word Socialist is being launched instead. In this they are very vulnerable because we have many words that are connected to the original meaning of Socialist before both sides started to miss the point. The Anti-Socialist is certainly the "Kids get off my lawn" geezer that hates everyone. The Unsocialized is that person who is so embarassing and creepy, behaving and dressing inappropriately not understanding the devastation he leaves behind for others. And the Socialized person who works well with others succeeding for themselves by empowering and advancing all around them.

Rather than agreeing with the GOP false frame that the Soviets (that younger folk only know from history books,) or the Nazis (who used Socialist like Compassionate Conservatives use "Compassionate"), and in neither case was any more Socialized than A Kabul Embassy Rent-a-guard, a strong comeback with the real frame will not only destroy their hate speech, but advance the real Socialist agenda as expressed by the likes of Senator Bernie Saunders.

Oh! and "Bipartisanship"? The only examples I am aware of, were when the Republican Antisocialists teamed up with the Unsocialized Dixiecrats to toss any Socialized concept "under the bus". As both of those sides are now part of the same party, such "bipartisanship" is no longer necessary.

If the Gang Of Pirates think that the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat, it is not any part of Bipartisan to accommodate them and roll over and play dead.

Bipartisanship and Socialism

Submitted by LANDWKS516 on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 6:12pm.

I agree with Mark Karlin on not understanding Bipartisanship and Socialism, however this name calling and labeling is done from both parties. I am a Democrat and defend the party and its stand on many issues, but it is not possible for anyone to agree 100% of the time with anyone. I really think we ALL need to get back to defending an issue and not simply our own party. We are not getting anywhere or accomplishing anything by being pig headed and refusing to compromise. Just as in a relationship, politics must be willing to try and understand the other point of view and be able to give in at times. Otherwise we will get to a point where nothing will ever get done.

Single Payer Supporters Have Compromised On Health Care For All

Submitted by crackerjack on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 6:34pm.

"How?"

"By agreeing to let single payer be but one of several health care options available to the public."

"Why not compromise by giving up on single payer?"

"And sacrifice how many lives?"

"Cause of death?"

"Privatization of health care."

"Brought about by?"

"Greed."

Common Sense As The Standard, Not What Corporate Media Feeds Us

Submitted by crackerjack on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 2:47pm.

Shades of Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping famous quotation about it not mattering whether the cat is black or white so long as it catches the mouse. And oh how the right cheered Deng's comment, a portend as it turns out of enormous corporate profits to be had from outsourcing America's industrial base to China, not to mention what the size of the Chinese market might do for U.S. exports. And considering how pro-common sense the right was back then in regards to China's facing up to its precarious economic situation, how come the right isn't clamoring right now for a common sense approach to health care? Something to do, perhaps, with their being liars, hypocrits & opportunists?

words and reality

Submitted by zeldon on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 12:48pm.

the effect of both words is to restrict the range of discourse to the universe of Republican versus Democrat. The Republicans cut off reality with Obama at the extreme end of the left. The Democrats do it by "realistically" wanting bi-partisanship with Republicans and turning their backs to such as Kucinich, Nader, Jesse Jackson et al as well as the 70% of people who wanted single-payer. Those people are denied existence in that political "real" world. So with all the noise, enter the "centrists" who bring it all together--generally those securely in the bag for the appropriate corporations. Getting sucked into these fake issues obscures the real ones.

Mark, I've TRIED to explain why Dems FAIL to DEFEND 100 years

Submitted by veritas on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 12:22pm.

Mr. Karlin, I've TRIED to explain why Dems FAIL to DEFEND 100 years of genuinely "liberal," progressive, democratic progress, but I'm always shouted down as "anti-Semitic" every time I try. That is not true: I supported Prime Minister Rabin's peace efforts, before he was SHOT DOWN by an assassin WHIPPED TO A MURDEROUS PITCH by Israel's Likudnik military officers, settlers, & political demagogues http://wrmea.com/backissues/0994/9409007.htm - and to this day, I support former Alabama Dem. Governor Don Siegelman's efforts for a dismissal of his conviction, based on a hyper-political prosecution overseen by Karl Rove, a prosecution INITIATED by Rove friend Alabama based US Attorney (prosecutor) Leura Canary - a Republican prosecutor who was and is MARRIED to the CAMPAIGN MANAGER of Gov. Siegelman's REPUBLICAN opponent! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leura_Canary

NOTHING proves the NEO-CON "Democrat" ALLIANCE with the Right-Wing Cheney-Bush-Rove administration more than that the Obama/Holder Justice Department saw fit to DISMISS REPUBLICAN Senator Ted Stevens' FRAUD conviction, because of (Republican overseen) gross prosecutorial misconduct - WHILE the Obama/Emanuel White House PRETENDS NOT TO NOTICE Gov. Siegelman's atrocious, lynch-mob conviction at the hands of Karl Rove's pejurious prosecutors, in the courtroom of a Republican judge who had been chastised for conflicts-of-interest corruption by Siegelman when he was sitting governor!

So - WHY do DC Democrats REFUSE to STAND UP FOR 100 YEARS of genuine, 'liberal,' progressive, democratic progress?

Issues like WOMEN's VOTING RIGHTS, the END OF CHILD LABOR, the RIGHT TO UNIONIZE (prior to winning union voting rights, mine owners like the Rockefeller family had OPEN SEASON to have "security" forces MACHINE-GUN striking miners! See "Battle of Blair Mountain" and "Ludlow massacre"); the FORTY-HOUR WORK WEEK, OVERTIME pay, MINIMUM job health & safety standards (at turn of the century, some underground mines had DAILY fatalities!), PENSIONS, benefits (including health-care), and the (theoretical) PROTECTION of one's bank accounts (FDIC), pensions, savings, and stock markets, etc.

The SEC was set up to PROTECT Americans' stock market investments, but it has been made TOOTHLESS by the COMBINED Republican AND "corporate Democrat" ASSAULT on SEC financial oversight,

ie the Rubin/Summers ENDORSED PHIL GRAMM ASSAULT on the Glass-Steagall Act, The GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY Act and the similar Commodity Futures Modernization Act, both PUSHED BY RADICAL RIGHT-WING Republicans, AND "Democrats" like ROBERT RUBIN, LAWRENCE SUMMERS, and the whole raft of Clinton/Obama GOLDMAN SACHS bankers!

YOU CAN NOT SUPPORT RADICAL RIGHT WING LEGISLATION, and call yourself "a Democrat"!

The Neo-Con (tax-cuts for rich, expanding wars overseas, police-state powers in 'war on terra', and NO OVERSIGHT BAILOUTS FOR BILLIONAIRES are the 3 core items of the Neo-Con agenda) "Democrats" - of whom JOE LIEBERMAN is the textbook example - are SO in control of the "Democrat" Party, that Democrats now FAIL to REMIND Americans of what life in America was like BEFORE the New Deal - what it was like to be a Senior with NO JOB, NO INCOME, NO support, NO health-care; what life for seniors during THE GREAT DEPRESSION, what it was like for seniors before President JOHNSON passed his "GREAT SOCIETY legislation, INCLUDING MEDICARE for seniors, millions of whom would have NO health care if not for Medicare!

The Obama/Emanuel White House is NOT EVEN TRYING to point out, that the Seniors screaming that they "HATE SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE" are not only beneficiaries of Social Security, not only are THEY ON MEDICARE, but THEY are THE BIGGEST BENEFICIARIES of Roosevelt's & Johnson's "Liberal Democrat" programs in all of American society!

Mark, THE SENIORS SCREECHING that they "HATE SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE", are the ones TERRIFIED that they will lose THEIR MEDICARE!!

The Neo-Con TAKEOVER of the Democrat Party EXPLAINS ALL the above, simply, easily.... EVERYTHING connects! The Obama/Emanuel White House is now trying to tell us that ARLEN SPECTER is a "Democrat" - JUST because they say so!

Specter (like Lieberman, Norm Coleman, and Rahm Emanuel) is a TEXTBOOK Neo-Con, who started his career as a "Liberal" but SWITCHED to the Republican Party once he (they) had achieved some name recognition, a donor base, and the INFLUENCE to COMMAND corporate donations.

(Unlike the other 3, Rahm Emanuel hasn't declared himself a Republican, or run with Republicans as Lieberman ran with McCain; Emanuel merely selects Republicans, and shoves them down DEM primary voters' throats, when Emanuel ran the DCCC in 2006**, but Emanuel is certainly on the same side as Lieberman on EVERY Neo-Con "no oversight bailouts for bankers" financial issue.)

**http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/10/training-democratic-candidates-to-win.html

and the COST - lost elections - of Emanuel choosing ONLY PRO-WAR candidates to support in election 2006 -

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2006/11/how-rahm-emanuel-lost-house-for.html

This post has been no fun to write, but if you want to understand why President Obama has ALREADY BROKEN TWO MAJOR CAMPAIGN PLEDGES - the pledge to "keep lobbyists OUT of my administratation" (when he instead STACKS his administration with NOTHING BUT GoldmanSachs banking lobbyists!***, and candidate Obama PLEDGED "ALL government negotiations WILL BE IN DAYLIGHT, IN FULL PUBLIC VIEW" when, to the complete contrary, Obama has passed the Big Pharma GIVEAWAY - IN SECRET, BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, through a DEMOCRAT Congress & Senate!

(Not only that, but candidate Obama SPECIFICALLY chastised Bush for pushing through the Big Pharma written Prescription Drug bill, whose costs are TWICE the $400 billion that the Repuglican administration promised us it would cost - and now Mr. Obama has done EXACTLY that, again, through a DEM Congress!)

*** from January 2009, not much has improved since -
http://a.abcnews.com/Blotter/story?id=6735898&page=1
"ANOTHER Lobbyist Headed Into Obama Administration
Leaves Critics Questioning the President's Commitment to Changing Washington"

Sorry.

Submitted by VintageV12 on Thu, 09/03/2009 - 12:14am.

"Mr. Karlin, I've TRIED to explain why Dems FAIL to DEFEND 100 years of genuinely "liberal," progressive, democratic progress, but I'm always shouted down as "anti-Semitic" every time I try.

You're shouted down as anti-semitic because you're anti-semitic. It's real simple. The people you mention in your posts are almost always Jews, and only Jews. You're not foolin any of us, just yourself.

What are Capitolism and Competition

Submitted by BlastFromGlast on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 9:58am.

Do they include subsidizning Medicare Advantage to prove that a system of Insurance Company rationing is better than regular Medicare?

Do they include eliminating the Public Option because competition from Government for the benefit of Health Care is unfair for Health Insurance?

Do they mean preventing negotiation for drug prices?

Be careful of what you express on healthcare or other issues.

Submitted by kathy2 on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 9:44am.

Bi-partisanship is certainly the more flexible and widely used term, especially when used by the administration. It's continually evoked in the midst of accusations on death panels, infanticide, and Republicans not being eligible for insurance, and even though there would be a substantial bloc against healthcare reform with the GOP, no matter how watered down the bill becomes. Most recently, the GOP responded to the lameness by calling for a delay with any healthcare legislation. Maybe the MO is the opposite of the Republicans--instead of divide and conquer, it's a unite to conquer caveat. When you look at the recent history of pharmacy and insurance contributions to the Democrats and particularly the 2008 contributions specific to Obama at almost 3 million dollars, the appeasement driven agenda becomes more understandable.

I hope I'm wrong, but it appears the public option is getting thrown under the bus; or if it survives, it could be riddled with compromises to the GOP and industries. The whitehouse.gov site has nothing to little on it among its proposals for insurance reforms, and the messaging is consistent from Emanuel, Sebilius, Kerry and Obama on how dispensable it is.

And last, but not least, the NLPC has revealed a plan from the White House to harvest from social networking sites, like Facebook, Twitter, My Space, etc. Pretty recently, Obama's New Media asked supporters to send information on critics of healthcare; then there was a backlash of criticism and retreat, according to Digg. I can't access the article on NLPC.org, or even the website, but apparently, the purpose is to monitor dissenters. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?

Don't understand 'Socialism' and 'Bipartisan'? Let me help--

Submitted by Cole... on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 12:33pm.

Socialism comes from the word Social--i.e. Society. It's us, it's we, it's everyone---like the Constitution, starts with "We the People". Did the framers make an error? Did they mean to say We the repugs, we the wealthy, we the rulers? They could have stated that, but nope it reads as they meant "We". Social!

Bipartisn. comes from a choice on any issue--yes or no, for or against, up or down. That simple, what makes it become complicated is when a political bunch takes a side, and another takes the other side. What makes it more complicated is when a political bunch take a side in order to justify their existance.

The store owner will always get a little more for his goods so will always accumulate wealth, no party affilialtion is needed. The repugs have no reason to exist so they have to oppose the Social, and try to make it look like they are needed to protect the store, and the Social would ruin it. All other issues, race, religeon, gender, etc are just props. Useful props because the distortions and lies which can be told are endless.

The NLPC concerns might be crock, but . . . .

Submitted by kathy2 on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 4:31pm.

I never mentioned socialism. It's become just another popular pejorative, like repugs and old white men. I thought I was being clear about the misuse of bipartisanship -- that it's being used as an excuse not to enact a strong public option and to appropriate greater power. Since I've been able to look at the NLPC website, I don't know if the allegations there can actually hold any water, but my concerns still remain for the administration's respect for civil liberties. And given all their inconsistencies on healthcare, I remain cynical over their concern for the American people.

Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

User login