But why aren’t neo-cons on the defensive? Duh! In part, it’s because of the true nature of the electorate. (Deep attitudes can only be “polled” so far.) But in large part, it’s because the other side controls the framework of public discussion.
Why aren’t neo-cons and Republicans on the defensive? In large part, it’s because they get puffed—and Democrats get jeered—within the sprawling public discussion constructed by the “mainstream” press.Somersby ties this into the "war on Gore" in 2000. I would take the argument even further, and argue that there was a sick symbiosis between the mainstream/far-right pundits who assailed Gore and the progressive purists who voted Nader. The purists always think that they're the hippest cats in the room -- when they are actually, and without exception, rubes of the Cletus-the-Slackjawed-Yokel variety.
Here's a clue for those "progressives" who think that the country has wised up since 2004: According to a CBS News poll, more respondents identified Obama's religion as Muslim than as Protestant. That false perception parallels the lies told about Gore in 2000. As the old song put it: You have to be carefully taught. Contrary to Somersby, this attack succeeded not because mainstream journalists abetted it -- they didn't -- but because the right-wing smear machine is still a steamroller as tall as the Chrysler building.
Don't believe me? Check it out: 52% of the American people support a military strike on Iran.
My progressive friend, stop thinking that your fellow citizens think as you think. They don't. I wish they did, but they don't. Stop acting like Cletus and hip thyself to an infuriating truth: Democratic candidates must run in an environment in which they cannot control the message. Virtually all the overground and underground forces that shape public perception -- mainstream news, right-wing radio, the progressive blogosphere, libertarians, conspiracy buffs -- are united in Dem-hate.
That is why the neocons aren't on the defensive. That is why, after seven years of Bush's failures, they can still sound the triumphalist note. That is why they will probably win in 2008.
9 comments:
If the American people are as irredeemably hidebound and conservative as you claim, and you believe in the primacy of the ideal of democracy, then the Republicans deserve to win, fair and square.
Mind you, I think that opinion of the electorate is merely cheap pre-emptive excuse-making from the acolytes of a political party that appears to have honed that activity to a fine art- along with similarly hapless exercises, such as making every move dependent on wetting their finger and seeing which way the wind is blowing in a given public opinion poll before deciding (not) to make a move- at the expense of developing a coherent, principled strategy of contesting a political struggle.
You know, one based on leading- taking the initiative, consistently working to advance the most important tenets of your point of view and daring your opposition, persuading the unconvinced and motivating the disillusioned dropouts from the electoral process (potentially the largest constituency in the country); rather than following- hesitating to make any move that doesn't have a guaranteed escape clause into capitulation, retreating at the first indication of difficulty or resistance, and then deriding the intelligence of the majority of Americans for not being ready for your visionary progressive brilliance.
But, if I'm wrong...that's democracy, eh?
No you're wrong. The Neocons aren't on the defensive because the Dems don't have the balls (or they're being blackmailed) and CHOOSE not to put these guys away. Half of the Neocons are criminals. Enact some laws and put them in jail! They're breaking laws. Put a case together. Unite against them. PUT SOME NEOCONS in jail. What you can't or won't do that? Too afraid to look into stolen election? 9/11 oddities? Are they being blackmailed? Or are they in on the take too? Screw the Dems. Grow a pair Dems or keep losing elections.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that our real target ought to be the media. That instead of staging increasingly small demonstrations around increasingly more walled-off government facilities, we ought to be demonstrating against the networks. Marching up and down outside their studios. Mocking their personalities. Shoving the real questions in their faces.
The media are the true pivot point for power in this country. They set the discourse, they protect the elite figureheads, and they've all been bought and sold for the last two generations. Project Mockingbird locked up the media -- not the politicians. How can we have any hope of changing things if we don't first reveal them for what they are?
Oh yeah, another point: the "neocons", etc. "aren't on the defensive" and still "sounding the triumphalist note" because they know they have a decisive majority of the American people behind them.
They're acting like that because it's a sound, tested tactic of political warfare to keep your "game face" on. Even when you're been found out, the facts are catching up with you, and you're vulnerable to getting your ass kicked.
For some reason, the "neocon" Republicans realize the importance of keeping a game face on. By contrast, the acolytes of the Democratic Orthodox Party doesn't seem to know what a game face is.
Poor-mouthing, blaming, pouting defeatism...now that, they know about.
Name me a team that ever won with that attitude.
Starroute I agree with you that the mainstream media no longer presents fair and balanced news because of the ocnsolidation since Reagan pushed the FCC to repeal the "Fairness Doctrine".
here is another article for you to read:
War Protests: Why No Coverage?
By Jerry Lanson
The Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1030/p09s02-coop.html
Tuesday 30 October 2007
Newspapers have a duty to inform citizens about such democratic events.
Boston - Coordinated antiwar protests in at least 11 American cities this weekend raised anew an interesting question about the nature of news coverage: Are the media ignoring rallies against the Iraq war because of their low turnout or is the turnout dampened by the lack of news coverage?
Well folks, guess what? The media properties have been sold off to the highest, not fairest, bidder and so he who owns the most gold prevails and throws their weight around, not the average middle class or lower middle class or impoverished citizen. We simply don't count.
But protests won't do anything, the "Fairness Doctrine" needs to be reinstated but this won't happen with the current congress and senate. That is for starters. Then laws against owning let's say more than 20% of US media companies or more than a particular number of media markets.
It'll never happen in my lifetime.
I have to admit, I was among the fooled. If I had been surveyed, I would have been among those who thought Obama was Muslim, because of the story of the alleged Muslim school he was alleged to have attended, and the way that story was refuted (that he didn't really go there.) The subliminal message that he was Muslim was not something I saw refuted, so I just accepted that.
I suppose if I had thought about it, I would have realized it could not be true. If it was, his religion would have been as big an issue (or bigger) than Romney's. But I didn't think about it, because I didn't care. It meant nothing to me, with the possible exception being that the though that he was a non-Christian might have made him even more appealing to me. (Being non-Christian myself, I am especially offended by the emphasis religious affiliation continues to play in politics, despite the separation of church and state that forms one of the cornerstones of this republic.)
You do make a good point about the way issues are covered, and the continued control over the way issues are framed the major media continues to exercise. Many on-line activists assume they can influence the way issues are framed far more than they really can.
There are exceptions to the overwhelming control the major media enjoys, notable because they are exceptions. One of the first was the way the "Dark Alliance" series was covered - or rather NOT covered - by the more influential papers in the country. The fact that this is a notable exception is interesting, because it required that the initial story appear in a traditional paper, a "member of the club" before it could even become a story. When the LA Times and the Washington Post tried to ignore the story, the noise among Internet activists forced them to change course. Of course, they didn't force them to acknowledge the truth, though.
Truth and history are not absolutes, they are perceived, and the major media still controls the way they are perceived, which means they control the truth. The fact is, there could be a million people marching against the war in each of the largest 5-10 metropolitan areas of the United States, and if the major media completely ignored it, the political fallout would be negligible. The frightening thing is that today, for the first time in this nation's history, the major media probably WOULD ignore such a story, and succeed in doing so.
This is not an accidental development. It has been planned and executed over a long period of time, deliberately, by political and economic forces whose interests are served by eliminating the political power of 90% of the country's citizens, with the exception of those who serve their interests. Those citizens get to have their voices amplified. First, the "fairness doctrine" was eliminated. Then the limits on ownership of local outlets by national networks were “relaxed”. Then the limits on numbers of stations where eliminated. Then out went the limits on cross-media ownership. Then the limits on foreign ownership were "bent" severely.
We no longer have a media. We have a propaganda organ of the financial elite posing as a media. Their freedoms remain "protected" so long as they stay on message. The entire process amounts to a coup of enormous proportions, executed with very few well placed shots being fired. The rest of us remain paralyzed, most of us wondering what the heck happened, and few of us having any idea what to do about it.
Checkmate.
I'm sure that if you bad-mouth progressives just a little bit more, they'll take your side. You are, perhaps, three "motherfuckers" away from reuniting the Democratic base. Don't stop now!
The answer to the question is simple--it is the media that puts the Neo-cons on the pedestal, keeps inviting them to the table, and kicks everyone else out.
Unfortunately, there is still a need to shoot at the Democrats and accuse them of doing nothing. That is a grave mistake.
I, too, am upset that there does not seem to be much going on under the Dem leadership of Congress (more in the House, but less of a margin in the Senate...it's pretty razor-thin there). But just opening fire on the Dems misses the larger picture: that the Democrats HAVE been doing a great deal to hold Bush et al accountable, but the media ignores it.
Waxman's investigations, the Blackwater hearings, legislation to end the Iraq war and bring our troops home...none of these were possible a year ago under Republican rule. But they have happened since the Democrats took office.
Sadly, the media has either twisted these things to the advantage of the Republicans or just ignored them. And it doesn't help when liberals fall for it (as THE DAILY HOWLER has documented time and time again).
Think about it--look back at the 2000 Campaign. How many of us believed the stuff about Gore that the media was dishing out? How many of us assumed that there was no difference between Bush and Gore? How many of us thought that Bush was a straight-up guy? All of these things were delivered via the media. They hated Gore, really hated him, and turned him into a charicature. Bush was left untouched.
It's happening again, and I'm afraid that we're too busy complaining about Hillary, Barack, Nancy, and Harry to notice. The complaint about impeachment--why keep blasting Pelosi and Reid? Why not _go_ to the media and DEMAND that they talk about it?
Years ago, liberals walked away from establishing a viable media outlet. That failure left room for conservatives and Neo-cons to come in and take over. It is a grievous error that needs to be addressed. We have the 'Net, we have Air America, and Pacifica...but it's not enough.
The neo-cons have great cover from their Zionist fellow travellers in Congress and the media.
The American people are receiving very misleading information from the media and leading public figures, on behalf of Zionist interests.
There is a reason the entire world has a different view of these matters, and that the entire world receives far different reports than what we get here from mainstream media outlets.
Post a Comment