February 28, 2004
The FMA, a shot-gun wedding
As has been stated here before, certain variants of conservative ideology pose a grave and gathering threat to our civilization. This has become especially clear in the debate surrounding gay marriage. We are all familiar with the conservatives' tired mantras on this issue. They are more overplayed than the lastest singles being pushed by the record companies and Clear Channel Radio. Lisa Schiffren, however, seems to think we haven't heard them yet.
The first concerns so-called "activist judges." Schiffren writes, "Whether you favor gay marriage or not, it should be a concern when judges and officials decide to circumvent the democratic process on a core issue." Perhaps Schiffren hasn't read the constitution recently, but it provides for an independent judiciary, whose "power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution." It is thus an integral part of the "democratic process," not its circumvention. The second involves a trumped up claim regarding civilization or culture. Schriffren again: "Marriage, defined as one man and one woman, has been a foundation of our culture for millenniums." However, once upon a time, millenarians and alarmists made the same argument regarding slavery, defined as the ownership of one person by another. In any case, Schiffren is wrong. 'Marriage' and 'marry' are derived from the Latin 'maritatus' and 'maritare,' which mean only "to wed, marry, or give in marriage," and contain no reference to "one man and one woman." More outrageously, however, she goes on to claim that "marriage is one of a few institutions that hold up democracy." Yet the institution of marriage is not even mentioned in the constitution, or is it? In any case, it is also equally effective in "holding up" totalitarian states and absolutist dictatorships.
Perhaps Schiffren is merely projecting. After all, it is the Bush administration that is currently "holding up" our democracy. No? True, they're not wearing ski-masks.
The first concerns so-called "activist judges." Schiffren writes, "Whether you favor gay marriage or not, it should be a concern when judges and officials decide to circumvent the democratic process on a core issue." Perhaps Schiffren hasn't read the constitution recently, but it provides for an independent judiciary, whose "power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution." It is thus an integral part of the "democratic process," not its circumvention. The second involves a trumped up claim regarding civilization or culture. Schriffren again: "Marriage, defined as one man and one woman, has been a foundation of our culture for millenniums." However, once upon a time, millenarians and alarmists made the same argument regarding slavery, defined as the ownership of one person by another. In any case, Schiffren is wrong. 'Marriage' and 'marry' are derived from the Latin 'maritatus' and 'maritare,' which mean only "to wed, marry, or give in marriage," and contain no reference to "one man and one woman." More outrageously, however, she goes on to claim that "marriage is one of a few institutions that hold up democracy." Yet the institution of marriage is not even mentioned in the constitution, or is it? In any case, it is also equally effective in "holding up" totalitarian states and absolutist dictatorships.
Perhaps Schiffren is merely projecting. After all, it is the Bush administration that is currently "holding up" our democracy. No? True, they're not wearing ski-masks.
Capitalism: code for economic absolutism
Due to one of the greatest ideological mystifications of our time, many mainstream conservatives seem not to realize that what they refer to as 'conservatism' is in reality nothing other than classical liberalism, and because (whether due to intellectual laziness, or general lack of interest) they draw few distinctions among their ideological opponents on the left, lumping all into the same 'liberal' bin, the left-liberal roots of many right wing pseudo-intellectuals (and neocons) are revealed in their fascination with left-wing factionalism. Tipped off by David Horowitz, it only recently dawned on the editorial staff at the Washington Times, for instance, that there are differences to be found between "Left," "Far Left" and "Radical Left."
One of the most interesting ironies to result from the sensationalist alarmism popular in rags like Horowitz's Front Page Magazine is the right wing defense of liberalism. This is accomplished mostly by untimely ideologues who still battle "communism" as if we were living in the 1950's. This week, Barry Loberfeld does the dirty work. His claim? That the progressive movement for social justice is nothing other than the Trojan Horse of Stalinist totalitarianism. This man likely believes that had Martin Luther King Jr. been allowed to live, we'd all be toiling in MLK memorial gulags. In any case, it is clear that in the guise of defending classical liberalism against its supposed opponents on the modern left, Loberfeld engages in an underhanded brand of historical revisionism to absolve the right of its complicity in the rise of fascism in the twentieth century. Just a few notes . . .
Loberfeld severs "social justice" from liberalism by locating its origin in Marx's critique of classical political economy. Not only is this reductive to the point of vulgarity, it is obfuscatory. The term "social justice" itself was coined by an Italian, and delineated by J.S. Mill, who, as you know, was not a Communist, but rather a liberal. It is with such omissions that Loberfeld turns the advocates of "social justice" into the opponents of the "revolt against political absolutism."
Loberfeld continues: "With a government (e.g., a monarchy) that is granted absolute power, it is impossible to speak of any injustice on its part. If it can do anything, it can't do anything "wrong." Justice as a political/legal term can begin only when limitations are placed upon the sovereign, i.e., when men define what is unjust for government to do."
In his defense of monarchical absolutism, Thomas Hobbes showed that "nothing the Sovereign Representative [i.e. the monarch] can do to a subject . . . can properly be called injustice." But he also allowed that there are things which a subject, "though commanded by the Sovereign, may nevertheless, without injustice, refuse to do." Thus "justice," as a political/legal term did not "arise as a revolt against political absolutism," as Loberfeld fantasizes, rather it was already extant in the justification of monarchical absolutism itself. And it is likely for this reason that it was effectively exploited by the advocates of revolt.
This error and oversight infects the whole of Loberfeld's argument. Though he alludes to Hayek to draw a distinction between liberal and social justice, he cannot help but fetishize formal equality in his assessments of our material existence. Thus does the specter of (legalist) absolutism haunt his rhetoric, and inform his fanatical devotion to a nonexistent "political equality." And he is thereby led to disavow the obvious but difficult truth that "classes still exist in capitalism." Ironically, and it seems the irony is lost on him, Loberfeld praises capitalism for having achieved the communist's utopia, the classless society.
Since he has to rely on Hayek to determine that the subject of "liberal justice" is a "a flesh-and-blood person, who is held accountable for only those actions that constitute specifically defined crimes," it is of little wonder that he is unable to figure out that governments and corporations, which are treated as legal persons, are the subject of social justice because they too must be held accountable for those actions that constitute specifically defined crimes.
Loberfeld concludes by equating "social justice" with "socialism" and "Oriental despotism" via Marx. In his intellectual dishonesty, he cannot even bring himself to mention that an understanding of Marx's vehement critique of "utopian socialism" is necessary to properly assess his take on classical liberalism. But one cannot expect as much from Front Page Magazine. They don't know their Marx.
One of the most interesting ironies to result from the sensationalist alarmism popular in rags like Horowitz's Front Page Magazine is the right wing defense of liberalism. This is accomplished mostly by untimely ideologues who still battle "communism" as if we were living in the 1950's. This week, Barry Loberfeld does the dirty work. His claim? That the progressive movement for social justice is nothing other than the Trojan Horse of Stalinist totalitarianism. This man likely believes that had Martin Luther King Jr. been allowed to live, we'd all be toiling in MLK memorial gulags. In any case, it is clear that in the guise of defending classical liberalism against its supposed opponents on the modern left, Loberfeld engages in an underhanded brand of historical revisionism to absolve the right of its complicity in the rise of fascism in the twentieth century. Just a few notes . . .
Loberfeld severs "social justice" from liberalism by locating its origin in Marx's critique of classical political economy. Not only is this reductive to the point of vulgarity, it is obfuscatory. The term "social justice" itself was coined by an Italian, and delineated by J.S. Mill, who, as you know, was not a Communist, but rather a liberal. It is with such omissions that Loberfeld turns the advocates of "social justice" into the opponents of the "revolt against political absolutism."
Loberfeld continues: "With a government (e.g., a monarchy) that is granted absolute power, it is impossible to speak of any injustice on its part. If it can do anything, it can't do anything "wrong." Justice as a political/legal term can begin only when limitations are placed upon the sovereign, i.e., when men define what is unjust for government to do."
In his defense of monarchical absolutism, Thomas Hobbes showed that "nothing the Sovereign Representative [i.e. the monarch] can do to a subject . . . can properly be called injustice." But he also allowed that there are things which a subject, "though commanded by the Sovereign, may nevertheless, without injustice, refuse to do." Thus "justice," as a political/legal term did not "arise as a revolt against political absolutism," as Loberfeld fantasizes, rather it was already extant in the justification of monarchical absolutism itself. And it is likely for this reason that it was effectively exploited by the advocates of revolt.
This error and oversight infects the whole of Loberfeld's argument. Though he alludes to Hayek to draw a distinction between liberal and social justice, he cannot help but fetishize formal equality in his assessments of our material existence. Thus does the specter of (legalist) absolutism haunt his rhetoric, and inform his fanatical devotion to a nonexistent "political equality." And he is thereby led to disavow the obvious but difficult truth that "classes still exist in capitalism." Ironically, and it seems the irony is lost on him, Loberfeld praises capitalism for having achieved the communist's utopia, the classless society.
Since he has to rely on Hayek to determine that the subject of "liberal justice" is a "a flesh-and-blood person, who is held accountable for only those actions that constitute specifically defined crimes," it is of little wonder that he is unable to figure out that governments and corporations, which are treated as legal persons, are the subject of social justice because they too must be held accountable for those actions that constitute specifically defined crimes.
Loberfeld concludes by equating "social justice" with "socialism" and "Oriental despotism" via Marx. In his intellectual dishonesty, he cannot even bring himself to mention that an understanding of Marx's vehement critique of "utopian socialism" is necessary to properly assess his take on classical liberalism. But one cannot expect as much from Front Page Magazine. They don't know their Marx.
February 26, 2004
The duopoly inside the duopoly
Due to their general disregard for the most elementary rules of logic, style, sense and composition, it is sometimes difficult to discern when our beloved corporate news commentators are attempting to be facetious. Sometimes, in moments of weakness, when I am inclined to lend the benefit of the doubt to some one of the louts and scoundrels who populate the editorial pages of the national media, I remind myself that there is no unreasonable doubt when the credibility of the journalistic tripe which today passes for intelligent and informed argumentation is at issue.
Yesterday, Gail Collins checked in at the New York Times as an "Editorial Observer" to ponder why four Democrats will be participating in the upcoming debates even though there "are only two candidates for the Democratic nomination." Tlaura at Daily Kos points out Collins' cynical arrogance, and her ignorance of relevant facts pertaining to her chosen topic. But for some reason tlaura is surprised to encounter such filch on the pages of the New York Times.
Collins takes pains to convince her readers that since neither Sharpton nor Kucinich will win the nomination, there should be no place for them in the primary race. They are merely taking up precious space. In order to make her case, Collins erroneously, and in all likelihood duplicitously, claims that "Kucinich has yet to win a single delegate." In fact, the day before her article was published, Kucinich picked up eight delegates in Hawaii. So either Collins didn't do her research, and she's woefully incompetent, or she was aware of Kucinich's delegates and suppressed the information, thusly providing clear evidence that she is little more than a boot-licking propagandist for the duopoly inside the duopoly.
Let's take Collins' position to its illogical conclusion. Indeed, there might as well be only two Democratic presidential candidates since the media mass ignores any and all candidates who do not conform to their preconceived and factitious notions of "electability." Despite this
obvious fact, Collins asserts that marginal candidates are "using up way more than their share" of political coverage. What political coverage? Is she referring to the Times' exhaustive reportage on the Kucinich and Sharpton campaigns? Really, you can't help but wonder whether this woman is serious. Otherwise, one can only conclude that the depth of her mendacity is matched only by the superficiality of her analysis. Almost unbelievably,Collins alleges that the "cast of characters" in the Democratic primary debates is "not the central issue in American democracy." Put aside for now the suspicion that this latter syntagm is but nonsense. If hearing out the candidates who are pursuing their party's nomination for the office of the president is not momentarily "the central issue in American democracy," there is no democracy in America. Furthermore, why stop at two candidates when only one will get the nomination? Why bother with primaries and elections at all only to suffer through the four year term of whatever piece of political trash the corporatists install in the White House this time around?
Sadly, many folk likely heard their own views echoed in Collins' fascistic diatribe against the democratic process and the national debate. Like homeland security, the Democratic primary is little more than a miserable charade.
Yesterday, Gail Collins checked in at the New York Times as an "Editorial Observer" to ponder why four Democrats will be participating in the upcoming debates even though there "are only two candidates for the Democratic nomination." Tlaura at Daily Kos points out Collins' cynical arrogance, and her ignorance of relevant facts pertaining to her chosen topic. But for some reason tlaura is surprised to encounter such filch on the pages of the New York Times.
Collins takes pains to convince her readers that since neither Sharpton nor Kucinich will win the nomination, there should be no place for them in the primary race. They are merely taking up precious space. In order to make her case, Collins erroneously, and in all likelihood duplicitously, claims that "Kucinich has yet to win a single delegate." In fact, the day before her article was published, Kucinich picked up eight delegates in Hawaii. So either Collins didn't do her research, and she's woefully incompetent, or she was aware of Kucinich's delegates and suppressed the information, thusly providing clear evidence that she is little more than a boot-licking propagandist for the duopoly inside the duopoly.
Let's take Collins' position to its illogical conclusion. Indeed, there might as well be only two Democratic presidential candidates since the media mass ignores any and all candidates who do not conform to their preconceived and factitious notions of "electability." Despite this
obvious fact, Collins asserts that marginal candidates are "using up way more than their share" of political coverage. What political coverage? Is she referring to the Times' exhaustive reportage on the Kucinich and Sharpton campaigns? Really, you can't help but wonder whether this woman is serious. Otherwise, one can only conclude that the depth of her mendacity is matched only by the superficiality of her analysis. Almost unbelievably,Collins alleges that the "cast of characters" in the Democratic primary debates is "not the central issue in American democracy." Put aside for now the suspicion that this latter syntagm is but nonsense. If hearing out the candidates who are pursuing their party's nomination for the office of the president is not momentarily "the central issue in American democracy," there is no democracy in America. Furthermore, why stop at two candidates when only one will get the nomination? Why bother with primaries and elections at all only to suffer through the four year term of whatever piece of political trash the corporatists install in the White House this time around?
Sadly, many folk likely heard their own views echoed in Collins' fascistic diatribe against the democratic process and the national debate. Like homeland security, the Democratic primary is little more than a miserable charade.
Quid pro quo
Given that the American middle class is willing to sacrifice pensions and health care today to save pennies on the consumer dollar tomorrow, it is not surprising that the baby boomers will likely give up on Social Security tomorrow for a three hundred dollar tax cut today.
The war on politics
The marriage question has the potential to split both the Republican and Democratic parties, and it should be exploited to that end. The President has outraged both conservative libertarians and constitutional conservationists with his proposal to ban gay marriage. And many left-liberals are frustrated by the Democrats' general unwillingness to come out in clear support of it. John Kerry does not support gay marriage. Even Howard Dean, that radical, is against its legalization.
The movement to protect heterosexual marriage by outlawing gay marriage is a slap in the face to conservative gay activists, since it is the top priority on many of their agendas. Bush has sacrificed the support of these constituents in order to appease social conservatives and the religious right. Gays need not apply at the RNC.
Now that no one can doubt whether or not Bush has begun campaigning in earnest, mainstream conservatives who were disappointed with the state of union speech and Bush's poor showing on Meet the Press have breathed a sigh of relief. Bush enthusiasts undoubtedly imagine that the President only grudgingly enters into the fray. Bush, after all, cannot hide his contempt when he utters the word 'politics.' And he has little respect for the normal push and shove of the political process, which he likes to call "playing politics."
Who can help but laugh when a politician derides his or her colleagues for 'politicizing' an issue? Or when one politician accuses another of 'politics'? The popular equation of politics tout court with partisan politics as such is the source of this irony. Joseph Curl provides us with a recent example. Reporting on Bush's stump speech, he writes: "After abstaining from politics for months as Democrats attacked him throughout their primary season, the president took aim at presidential front-runner John Kerry." Such a statement could have been produced by any of the vapid journalistic drones who do data entry for the corporations that own our representatives. The imagery makes one long for the good old days when politicians would settle their disputes with duelling pistols. At least we'd be spared some of them. Today, however, few people seem inclined to believe that war is simply the continuation of politics by other means. Instead we have bluster. In fact, it is likely the taboo against politicizing war that has led to the martialization of politics.
It is easy to imagine that simple minded conservatives would be outraged if one were to comment that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was political in nature, while similarly minded liberals would undoubtedly feel some sort of satisfaction, thinking that the president had been insulted. In fact, it seems most people cannot imagine a politics that would be anything other than (bi)partisan bickering. If only there were an Augustine to speak out against such Manicheaism. Instead there is only Ralph Nader. And this, in itself, is a sad commentary upon the state of contemporary American politics.
The movement to protect heterosexual marriage by outlawing gay marriage is a slap in the face to conservative gay activists, since it is the top priority on many of their agendas. Bush has sacrificed the support of these constituents in order to appease social conservatives and the religious right. Gays need not apply at the RNC.
Now that no one can doubt whether or not Bush has begun campaigning in earnest, mainstream conservatives who were disappointed with the state of union speech and Bush's poor showing on Meet the Press have breathed a sigh of relief. Bush enthusiasts undoubtedly imagine that the President only grudgingly enters into the fray. Bush, after all, cannot hide his contempt when he utters the word 'politics.' And he has little respect for the normal push and shove of the political process, which he likes to call "playing politics."
Who can help but laugh when a politician derides his or her colleagues for 'politicizing' an issue? Or when one politician accuses another of 'politics'? The popular equation of politics tout court with partisan politics as such is the source of this irony. Joseph Curl provides us with a recent example. Reporting on Bush's stump speech, he writes: "After abstaining from politics for months as Democrats attacked him throughout their primary season, the president took aim at presidential front-runner John Kerry." Such a statement could have been produced by any of the vapid journalistic drones who do data entry for the corporations that own our representatives. The imagery makes one long for the good old days when politicians would settle their disputes with duelling pistols. At least we'd be spared some of them. Today, however, few people seem inclined to believe that war is simply the continuation of politics by other means. Instead we have bluster. In fact, it is likely the taboo against politicizing war that has led to the martialization of politics.
It is easy to imagine that simple minded conservatives would be outraged if one were to comment that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was political in nature, while similarly minded liberals would undoubtedly feel some sort of satisfaction, thinking that the president had been insulted. In fact, it seems most people cannot imagine a politics that would be anything other than (bi)partisan bickering. If only there were an Augustine to speak out against such Manicheaism. Instead there is only Ralph Nader. And this, in itself, is a sad commentary upon the state of contemporary American politics.
February 23, 2004
No mercy, political parties are special interests
Is it not hilarious that so many Democrats and liberals assume an air of confidence in the fight against Bush's campaign machine but are petrified by the thought of Ralph Nader's presidential bid? While Gore and Kerry among others accuse Bush of playing upon people's fears, Democratic Party drones, weak-kneed liberals and pseudo-leftists declare that Nader's candidacy portends catastrophe because it recalls Bush's (s)election four years ago. Let's be clear. If the Democrats are in a strong position today, it is not because of anything they have done or accomplished, but rather because they are not directly responsible for the most egregious political and governmental scandals which have come to pass over the last four years. The Democratic Party is re-energized because many (young) people, aghast at Bush's presidency, fell prey once more to the duopoly blackmail.
In a country where only two thirds of registered voters are either Republicans or Democrats, it is an outrage that anyone would speak out against a third party candidate because such candidacies increase competition. And it is telling that a Democratic governor would single out Ralph Nader's campaign for being an act of "vanity and ego satisfaction." Perhaps Bill Richardson has yet to witness either Bush or Kerry in the act of self promotion. The only thing worse than gutter politics is character advertisement. Media Whores Online, for instance, stand true to their name, and are currently whoring themselves for John Kerry, "exposing details" of his impeccable and courageous "personal character."
Let's not forget that Kerry voted to give Bush his war, he voted for Ashcroft's Patriot Act, for No Child Left Behind, for free trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT which contain few or no protections for workers or the environment, or even human rights. Sure he was a leader in the anti-war movement in the early seventies, but where was he in 2002 and 2003? He's received millions of dollars in contributions from corporate special interests while decrying others for doing the same. He did not begin voting against various pieces of legislation being pushed by the Bush administration until he realized it was in the interests of his presidential campaign to do so (Medicare and the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill stand out). And finally, like Bush he's a Bonesman.
Ipecac railed against the left-liberal establishment just last week for embracing the Democratic party and the Republicratic order. With its coverage of Nader's announcement, the New York TImes proves yet again that it is little more than an instrument of the DNC. Likewise with the LA Times. The FOX News article on Nader's announcement is more informative and relevant than any from the so-called liberal press.
Interestingly, most of the media establishment are in agreement that, in the words of Nick Anderson at the LA Times, "Had Gore taken a sliver of Nader's Florida vote or a third of his New Hampshire vote, he would have beaten Bush." The media have yet to realize, or rather, they continue to cover up, the fact that Gore won Florida without Nader's help, but lost it with Katherine Harris'. Perhaps they are simply afraid to expose their own negligence, and their complicity in the fraud which was the Florida recount. Perhaps, like mainstream Democrats, they still fear that intense scrutiny of the ordeal would bring down the entire system. Imagine if the media had devoted only half the effort they expended on scrutinizing George Bush's National Guard records to what has come to be called Floridagate. Yet, if the newly installed administration had crumbled under the pressure there would have been no government to tell them what was important and what not. But who, in any case, could believe that the parasites and parrots in the American mass media, or the Congress for that matter, would be so bold as to take a long hard look at the crimes that were committed against the people of the United States in late 2000 and early 2001?
By scapegoating Nader, the Democratic establishment and the liberal media cover for the Republicans who fixed Florida. Or have the liberals simply forgotten that Bush's "election" was a coup? If Terry McAuliffe had any sense he would be reminding people that Bush stole the election, not that Nader participated in it.
In a country where only two thirds of registered voters are either Republicans or Democrats, it is an outrage that anyone would speak out against a third party candidate because such candidacies increase competition. And it is telling that a Democratic governor would single out Ralph Nader's campaign for being an act of "vanity and ego satisfaction." Perhaps Bill Richardson has yet to witness either Bush or Kerry in the act of self promotion. The only thing worse than gutter politics is character advertisement. Media Whores Online, for instance, stand true to their name, and are currently whoring themselves for John Kerry, "exposing details" of his impeccable and courageous "personal character."
Let's not forget that Kerry voted to give Bush his war, he voted for Ashcroft's Patriot Act, for No Child Left Behind, for free trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT which contain few or no protections for workers or the environment, or even human rights. Sure he was a leader in the anti-war movement in the early seventies, but where was he in 2002 and 2003? He's received millions of dollars in contributions from corporate special interests while decrying others for doing the same. He did not begin voting against various pieces of legislation being pushed by the Bush administration until he realized it was in the interests of his presidential campaign to do so (Medicare and the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill stand out). And finally, like Bush he's a Bonesman.
Ipecac railed against the left-liberal establishment just last week for embracing the Democratic party and the Republicratic order. With its coverage of Nader's announcement, the New York TImes proves yet again that it is little more than an instrument of the DNC. Likewise with the LA Times. The FOX News article on Nader's announcement is more informative and relevant than any from the so-called liberal press.
Interestingly, most of the media establishment are in agreement that, in the words of Nick Anderson at the LA Times, "Had Gore taken a sliver of Nader's Florida vote or a third of his New Hampshire vote, he would have beaten Bush." The media have yet to realize, or rather, they continue to cover up, the fact that Gore won Florida without Nader's help, but lost it with Katherine Harris'. Perhaps they are simply afraid to expose their own negligence, and their complicity in the fraud which was the Florida recount. Perhaps, like mainstream Democrats, they still fear that intense scrutiny of the ordeal would bring down the entire system. Imagine if the media had devoted only half the effort they expended on scrutinizing George Bush's National Guard records to what has come to be called Floridagate. Yet, if the newly installed administration had crumbled under the pressure there would have been no government to tell them what was important and what not. But who, in any case, could believe that the parasites and parrots in the American mass media, or the Congress for that matter, would be so bold as to take a long hard look at the crimes that were committed against the people of the United States in late 2000 and early 2001?
By scapegoating Nader, the Democratic establishment and the liberal media cover for the Republicans who fixed Florida. Or have the liberals simply forgotten that Bush's "election" was a coup? If Terry McAuliffe had any sense he would be reminding people that Bush stole the election, not that Nader participated in it.
February 22, 2004
Bin Laden: cost/benefit
Amid rumors that US and allied forces are closing in on Bin Laden himself, Ahmed Bouzid recently articulated one of the most shrewd political insights to have occurred to a Democrat in a long time: Democrats must set the coordinates of the debate surrounding (and psychologically prepare the population for) bin Laden's capture so that it's political effect can be controlled.
This touches upon one of the central critiques Democrats and liberals level against Bush's war in Iraq, namely, that it has distracted the nation from more pressing concerns in the war against terrorism, specifically bin Laden's Al Qaeda. We've all heard it before: Hey Mr. Bush, where's bin Laden? The question resonates with the public. Though the President's supporters, in the face of such criticism, play down the significance of capturing bin Laden, many likely believe that it would be one of the clearest indications of real progress in the war on terror. The mainstream logic here rests on the old theory of decapitation: to capture bin Laden would be to cut off the head of the snake. Even those who tend not to stress the importance of capturing bin Laden subscribe to the argument, maintaining that bin Laden's capture would be a "symbolic victory" in the war on terror, since he is no longer planning and executing actions and many of his top commanders have been killed or captured. Here bin Laden's death or imprisonment is viewed primarily with respect to the war of ideas which is more general than the war on terrorism. These positions seem overly simplistic and naive because they are.
It may be that, at the moment, bin Laden symbolically embodies and instantiates the forces of global terrorism only in the minds of terrorism's opponents. But of how much importance is bin Laden's real body to the networks, symbolic and otherwise, of global terrorism? What about his image? Will his capture or death at the hands of US or allied forces actually rob Islamo-fascism of its own symbolic instantiation in the figure of bin Laden? Could it not also catalyze a rebirth of Al Qaeda in newer and nastier forms? Bin Laden's real defeat could very well become the occasion for his symbolic victory. There is little doubt that upon his capture or death he will be hailed as a martyr by his supporters and sympathizers. Will Al Qaeda find a new beginning in bin Laden's sorry end, or has it been effectively pushed off the cliff but not yet fallen because it has yet to look down? There is no question as to which of these alternatives is preferable, but there is no way of predicting which way events will turn. And it does not help that US officials and politicians have so little to say about the capture of public enemy number one beyond reiterating that it has not happened yet, and stuttering that they don't know when it will.
Perhaps bin Laden has yet to be captured precisely because the costs were determined to outweigh the benefits. The coming election certainly changes the equation.
This touches upon one of the central critiques Democrats and liberals level against Bush's war in Iraq, namely, that it has distracted the nation from more pressing concerns in the war against terrorism, specifically bin Laden's Al Qaeda. We've all heard it before: Hey Mr. Bush, where's bin Laden? The question resonates with the public. Though the President's supporters, in the face of such criticism, play down the significance of capturing bin Laden, many likely believe that it would be one of the clearest indications of real progress in the war on terror. The mainstream logic here rests on the old theory of decapitation: to capture bin Laden would be to cut off the head of the snake. Even those who tend not to stress the importance of capturing bin Laden subscribe to the argument, maintaining that bin Laden's capture would be a "symbolic victory" in the war on terror, since he is no longer planning and executing actions and many of his top commanders have been killed or captured. Here bin Laden's death or imprisonment is viewed primarily with respect to the war of ideas which is more general than the war on terrorism. These positions seem overly simplistic and naive because they are.
It may be that, at the moment, bin Laden symbolically embodies and instantiates the forces of global terrorism only in the minds of terrorism's opponents. But of how much importance is bin Laden's real body to the networks, symbolic and otherwise, of global terrorism? What about his image? Will his capture or death at the hands of US or allied forces actually rob Islamo-fascism of its own symbolic instantiation in the figure of bin Laden? Could it not also catalyze a rebirth of Al Qaeda in newer and nastier forms? Bin Laden's real defeat could very well become the occasion for his symbolic victory. There is little doubt that upon his capture or death he will be hailed as a martyr by his supporters and sympathizers. Will Al Qaeda find a new beginning in bin Laden's sorry end, or has it been effectively pushed off the cliff but not yet fallen because it has yet to look down? There is no question as to which of these alternatives is preferable, but there is no way of predicting which way events will turn. And it does not help that US officials and politicians have so little to say about the capture of public enemy number one beyond reiterating that it has not happened yet, and stuttering that they don't know when it will.
Perhaps bin Laden has yet to be captured precisely because the costs were determined to outweigh the benefits. The coming election certainly changes the equation.
February 21, 2004
Opium for the few, emetics for the masses
There are few things more disconcerting than the state of intellectual barbarism into which so many Americans have plunged themselves. The Washington Times gleefully reported this week that "most Americans take bible stories literally." For perspective, the article quotes a Rev. Charles Nalls saying, "These are surprising and reassuring figures - a positive sign in a postmodern world that seemed bent on erasing faith from the public square in recent years." Apparently, Nalls is unaware that one of the defining characteristics of the so-called post-modern period is the rise of religious fundamentalism, which thrives and preys upon ignorance and gullibility. Nalls continues, "This tells me that America is reading the bible more than we thought." Yet, at the same time, one could easily and more persuasively draw the opposite conclusion, namely that fewer Americans are actually devoting any significant amount of time to reading at all, let alone to reading the bible. Widespread literalism is less a demonstration of faith than it is proof that a great many US citizens are simply incapable of conducting any serious kind of informed textual criticism whatsoever.
Religionists who preach that knowledge is literally a forbidden fruit, and seek to place a taboo upon scientific endeavor for fear that unregulated curiosity would disprove their most cherished prejudices pose a grave and gathering threat to all human civilization. Just as rabid fundamentalist Christians pour into the cities in search of the weak and downtrodden in order to manipulate their fears and stifle their desires, so too must the heirs of the Enlightenment, both secular and otherwise, march upon the backwaters and the boondocks to ensure that the spark of reason is not completely stamped out by the bootheels of goose-stepping religious fanatics.
However, what alarmist liberals term the "new Great Awakening" may be nothing more than a catatonic somnambulism which perfectly suits a culturally exhausted and politically spent faction of the population. If you were to believe Jerry Falwell, you'd think Christianity were in dire straights. Every scientific advancement and discovery threatens to undermine the fundamentalist's backward world-view. Interestingly, even the mainstream editorial representatives of the religious right have begun to realize that their old hard line ethics is incompatible with new hard line capitalism. After all, we cannot forget that these are the same people for whom Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is nothing other than the right hand of God. Some go so far as to call them "market fundamentalists."
For the likes of Falwell, every independent thought, every glimmer of doubt, every inspired speculation, represents a catastrophic hazard, the practical refutation of the preferred dogmas. Of course, this is the right wing's schtick, which they lifted from the liberals. Just as the legions of nationally syndicated conservative ideologues still deny that they are the mainstream media, so too do the religious right and the traditionalists decry their own political marginalization even as they grab hold of the reigns of power.
Yet, despite their soporatories, freedom from religion is not anarchy. It is sanity.
Religionists who preach that knowledge is literally a forbidden fruit, and seek to place a taboo upon scientific endeavor for fear that unregulated curiosity would disprove their most cherished prejudices pose a grave and gathering threat to all human civilization. Just as rabid fundamentalist Christians pour into the cities in search of the weak and downtrodden in order to manipulate their fears and stifle their desires, so too must the heirs of the Enlightenment, both secular and otherwise, march upon the backwaters and the boondocks to ensure that the spark of reason is not completely stamped out by the bootheels of goose-stepping religious fanatics.
However, what alarmist liberals term the "new Great Awakening" may be nothing more than a catatonic somnambulism which perfectly suits a culturally exhausted and politically spent faction of the population. If you were to believe Jerry Falwell, you'd think Christianity were in dire straights. Every scientific advancement and discovery threatens to undermine the fundamentalist's backward world-view. Interestingly, even the mainstream editorial representatives of the religious right have begun to realize that their old hard line ethics is incompatible with new hard line capitalism. After all, we cannot forget that these are the same people for whom Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is nothing other than the right hand of God. Some go so far as to call them "market fundamentalists."
For the likes of Falwell, every independent thought, every glimmer of doubt, every inspired speculation, represents a catastrophic hazard, the practical refutation of the preferred dogmas. Of course, this is the right wing's schtick, which they lifted from the liberals. Just as the legions of nationally syndicated conservative ideologues still deny that they are the mainstream media, so too do the religious right and the traditionalists decry their own political marginalization even as they grab hold of the reigns of power.
Yet, despite their soporatories, freedom from religion is not anarchy. It is sanity.
February 19, 2004
Gay marriage: Fascist or anti-Oedipal?
The reacto-cons at Front Page Magazine feigned outrage this week when they finally got around to commenting upon the protests sparked by Daniel Pipes' visit to UC Berkeley last week. The lead article was entitled "Fascism at UC Berkeley." Though the editorial staff at Front Page lovingly refers to the liberal left in the San Francisco Bay Area as "brown shirts," it is none other than right wing Christian fanatics who are demanding that the Governor of California send in the storm troopers to arrest the thugs who have allowed same sex couples to marry in San Francisco.
Gavin Newsom should be applauded for upping the ante on the issue of gay marriage. Conservatives have been pushed into a corner by one liberal mayor who had something to prove, and soon they will be screaming that they "will not let the soul of the nation be held hostage" by left coast activists. Indeed, they already are. This article by Brian Fahling is an apt specimen since his organization, the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy, is the one demanding that Schwarzeneggar have Newsom arrested.
Fahling's hyperbolic thesis is that the legalization of gay marriage would require that we first rewrite the laws of nature. He asserts that the physio-mystical union of one male with one female is the essence of marriage, and concludes that since allowing gays to marry would alter the definition of of marriage, "gay marriage" is effectively an attack upon the institution in particular and civilization in general. (For more moderate conservatives, "gay marriage" is first and foremost a crime against language.) In defense of his position, he argues that heterosexual marriage is the foundation of civilization, underpinned both biologically (male-female coupling is necessary for the perpetuation of the species) and psychologically (since it is the basis of "family"). As such, states Fahling, marriage is constitutive of human dignity because it reflects an order that transcends the individual, and it must therefore be protected by constitutional amendment.
Clearly, in the normal order of things, if men and women didn't copulate the species would soon die out. Male-female union is therefore necessary to perpetuate the race. But this is nothing other than brute biological necessity, and does not fundamentally distinguish humans from any other species which perpetuates itself via sexual reproduction. To claim that sexual reproduction, under the rubric of marriage, is the foundation of civilization, as Fahling does, is therefore naive at best and reductive at worst. Unlike today's paleo-conservatives, the classical political philosophers, from Locke to Rousseau, were for the most part of the opinion that civil political society, i.e. civilization, begins not with heterosexual union (i.e. conjugal society), but rather with the formation of unions and partnerships among men, to guard collectively against what none could haved repelled on his own, and to secure for themselves as a group what no individual could have secured alone.
Nevertheless, to save marriage from the vulgarities of our biology, Fahling deduces what he calls "normative family structure" by simply eternalizing an already idealized nuclear family. Fahling apparently requires a mystical justification for his oedipalism. And the question remains as to whether the transcendence of the individual in marriage and family renders the individual's sex and gender irrelevant.
To have done with Fahring it is enough to recall Anti-Oedipus: sexuality is not in the service of reproduction, rather reproduction is in the service of sexuality.
Gavin Newsom should be applauded for upping the ante on the issue of gay marriage. Conservatives have been pushed into a corner by one liberal mayor who had something to prove, and soon they will be screaming that they "will not let the soul of the nation be held hostage" by left coast activists. Indeed, they already are. This article by Brian Fahling is an apt specimen since his organization, the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy, is the one demanding that Schwarzeneggar have Newsom arrested.
Fahling's hyperbolic thesis is that the legalization of gay marriage would require that we first rewrite the laws of nature. He asserts that the physio-mystical union of one male with one female is the essence of marriage, and concludes that since allowing gays to marry would alter the definition of of marriage, "gay marriage" is effectively an attack upon the institution in particular and civilization in general. (For more moderate conservatives, "gay marriage" is first and foremost a crime against language.) In defense of his position, he argues that heterosexual marriage is the foundation of civilization, underpinned both biologically (male-female coupling is necessary for the perpetuation of the species) and psychologically (since it is the basis of "family"). As such, states Fahling, marriage is constitutive of human dignity because it reflects an order that transcends the individual, and it must therefore be protected by constitutional amendment.
Clearly, in the normal order of things, if men and women didn't copulate the species would soon die out. Male-female union is therefore necessary to perpetuate the race. But this is nothing other than brute biological necessity, and does not fundamentally distinguish humans from any other species which perpetuates itself via sexual reproduction. To claim that sexual reproduction, under the rubric of marriage, is the foundation of civilization, as Fahling does, is therefore naive at best and reductive at worst. Unlike today's paleo-conservatives, the classical political philosophers, from Locke to Rousseau, were for the most part of the opinion that civil political society, i.e. civilization, begins not with heterosexual union (i.e. conjugal society), but rather with the formation of unions and partnerships among men, to guard collectively against what none could haved repelled on his own, and to secure for themselves as a group what no individual could have secured alone.
Nevertheless, to save marriage from the vulgarities of our biology, Fahling deduces what he calls "normative family structure" by simply eternalizing an already idealized nuclear family. Fahling apparently requires a mystical justification for his oedipalism. And the question remains as to whether the transcendence of the individual in marriage and family renders the individual's sex and gender irrelevant.
To have done with Fahring it is enough to recall Anti-Oedipus: sexuality is not in the service of reproduction, rather reproduction is in the service of sexuality.
February 17, 2004
Update: ask and ye shall receive
Just three days ago, in a post on Dobbs and Glassman's recent exchange, I wondered how the CNN anchor would respond to hard criticism from the left. Yesterday, Dobbs invited Peter Hart, the director of FAIR, to discuss a report Hart recently published that was critical of Dobbs' program. Granted, FAIR is not exactly hard left (unless, that is, you're looking at them from the far right), but they undoubtedly lean left of center on most issues. In this instance, however, something may not be better than nothing. The transcript of the interview can be read here (scroll down three quarters of the way).
In his report, Hart argues that Dobbs is both a sensationalist and an alarmist, and that the program is biased toward the positions its anchor takes on the issues of immigration and border control. The question remains, however, whether Hart's report gets boyond typically liberal PC speech policing. In the interview, Hart only alludes to the scapegoating of "illegal workers" on Dobbs' program, while he points out Dobbs' disdain for the "niceties of [PC] language" in his report. While FAIR should be applauded for its efforts to ferret out conservative journalistic bias, it must be faulted for letting the major target of its criticism (FOX News) determine the parameters of what counts as fair reporting.
Hart begins his report with a reference to FOX: "With all the attention paid to the near-overt partisanship of the Fox News Channel, it's important to remember that skewed reporting wasn't invented by Rupert Murdoch's cable operation." It is well known that FOX considers a segment fair and balanced if and only if a conservative host moderates a discussion between a mainstream liberal and a mainstream conservative. Hart's fundamental gripe with Dobbs is that he does not live up to this journalistic standard, and thereby skews his discussions toward the positions of anti-immigrationists. Hart's method does not serve him well. He alleges that Dobbs wants viewers to think the country is in a state of crisis, but Dobbs freely admits that the country is in a state of crisis and the criticism is deflected. A more effective critique would analyze Dobbs' language and rhetoric to show that the anchor's obsession with illegal immigration and border control is irrational and blows the perceived problem out of all reasonable proportion.
In his report, Hart argues that Dobbs is both a sensationalist and an alarmist, and that the program is biased toward the positions its anchor takes on the issues of immigration and border control. The question remains, however, whether Hart's report gets boyond typically liberal PC speech policing. In the interview, Hart only alludes to the scapegoating of "illegal workers" on Dobbs' program, while he points out Dobbs' disdain for the "niceties of [PC] language" in his report. While FAIR should be applauded for its efforts to ferret out conservative journalistic bias, it must be faulted for letting the major target of its criticism (FOX News) determine the parameters of what counts as fair reporting.
Hart begins his report with a reference to FOX: "With all the attention paid to the near-overt partisanship of the Fox News Channel, it's important to remember that skewed reporting wasn't invented by Rupert Murdoch's cable operation." It is well known that FOX considers a segment fair and balanced if and only if a conservative host moderates a discussion between a mainstream liberal and a mainstream conservative. Hart's fundamental gripe with Dobbs is that he does not live up to this journalistic standard, and thereby skews his discussions toward the positions of anti-immigrationists. Hart's method does not serve him well. He alleges that Dobbs wants viewers to think the country is in a state of crisis, but Dobbs freely admits that the country is in a state of crisis and the criticism is deflected. A more effective critique would analyze Dobbs' language and rhetoric to show that the anchor's obsession with illegal immigration and border control is irrational and blows the perceived problem out of all reasonable proportion.
February 16, 2004
Duopoly politics, or, sign right here Mr. Faust
By the day it grows increasingly clear just how similar the two duopoly parties are in terms of strategy, tactics, and political practice. It is therefore no coincidence that political operatives, both conservative and liberal, are struggling all the more to delineate the differences between the two parties in terms of ideology and world view. Today each of the ruling factions is being assailed from both the left and the right - though the Democrats are getting a pass from many progressive quarters this time around. The two parties must not only spar with one another, they must also keep the flock in formation, hook the non-aligned, and exploit the independently organized just to keep themselves afloat.
On the issue of duopoly politics and the two party system anarchists, moderates and independents (not to mention third parties) have much common ground, and could mount a strong front against the liberal-conservative republicratic order. This does not go unnoticed by the establishment. Just as the elite media (television and print) fear the rise of alternative news sources, so too do Democratic and Republican party elites fear the rise of viable political alternatives to the ruling order. Every year more people realize that a vote for a Republican or a Democrat is a vote for the political system in which effective choice is confined to a virtual coin toss between a Republican and a Democrat. And this because so many people cast their votes not in favor of some candidate but rather against that candidate's opponent.
The two party system is a fundamental pillar of the political status quo, spawning, contributing to and exascerbating various social, political and economic injustices. Many party loyalists cannot admit this, for obvious reasons, and prefer instead to blame each other for what are actually structural effects of the binary system.
Few defenses of the duopoly are therefore especially persuasive, when you hear them. At Change for America, for instance, it has been argued that, "it is not (in my view) the two party system which has failed us," where "us" refers to Howard Dean's supporters. The claim responds to the inkling that disgruntled Deaniacs may wander off from the Democratic herd. The piece therefore aims to bring people back into the bipartisan fold, but even the author does not seem fully convinced of his own position.
Trippi draws a productive distinction between "transactional" and "transformational" politics (which differentiates political backscratching from political empowerment, respectively - and with the obvious valuation-) and asserts that the media are part of the problem: "The press praises a transactional position taken by a candidate as politically smart." This, however, may be too charitable a reading of the mass press. The media are reductive. Simply put, they view transactionalism as politics tout court. The argument continues: The two party system has not failed us. "What is wrong today is not Democratic Party vs Republican Party. It is not even the old 'there isn't a dimes bit of difference between them' meme. No it is a system that pits a transactional leader produced by the Republican Party against a transactional leader produced by the Democratic Party."
Is it not the case, however, that the latter is constitutive of the two party system? If so, then it would seem that the two party system must fail us if our goal is a transformational politics. In other words, why agree with the duopoly partys' apologists when they argue that the two party system isn't the probelm, but rather that the two party system is?
We shouldn't fail to note the transaction which is lurking here below the surface: if you want transformational leadership vote Democrat because you'll at least experience the transformation from one transactionalism to another. This, of couse, is the old lesser-of-two-evils argument with a hat on.
The two party system thrives on artifice and political blackmail.
On the issue of duopoly politics and the two party system anarchists, moderates and independents (not to mention third parties) have much common ground, and could mount a strong front against the liberal-conservative republicratic order. This does not go unnoticed by the establishment. Just as the elite media (television and print) fear the rise of alternative news sources, so too do Democratic and Republican party elites fear the rise of viable political alternatives to the ruling order. Every year more people realize that a vote for a Republican or a Democrat is a vote for the political system in which effective choice is confined to a virtual coin toss between a Republican and a Democrat. And this because so many people cast their votes not in favor of some candidate but rather against that candidate's opponent.
The two party system is a fundamental pillar of the political status quo, spawning, contributing to and exascerbating various social, political and economic injustices. Many party loyalists cannot admit this, for obvious reasons, and prefer instead to blame each other for what are actually structural effects of the binary system.
Few defenses of the duopoly are therefore especially persuasive, when you hear them. At Change for America, for instance, it has been argued that, "it is not (in my view) the two party system which has failed us," where "us" refers to Howard Dean's supporters. The claim responds to the inkling that disgruntled Deaniacs may wander off from the Democratic herd. The piece therefore aims to bring people back into the bipartisan fold, but even the author does not seem fully convinced of his own position.
Trippi draws a productive distinction between "transactional" and "transformational" politics (which differentiates political backscratching from political empowerment, respectively - and with the obvious valuation-) and asserts that the media are part of the problem: "The press praises a transactional position taken by a candidate as politically smart." This, however, may be too charitable a reading of the mass press. The media are reductive. Simply put, they view transactionalism as politics tout court. The argument continues: The two party system has not failed us. "What is wrong today is not Democratic Party vs Republican Party. It is not even the old 'there isn't a dimes bit of difference between them' meme. No it is a system that pits a transactional leader produced by the Republican Party against a transactional leader produced by the Democratic Party."
Is it not the case, however, that the latter is constitutive of the two party system? If so, then it would seem that the two party system must fail us if our goal is a transformational politics. In other words, why agree with the duopoly partys' apologists when they argue that the two party system isn't the probelm, but rather that the two party system is?
We shouldn't fail to note the transaction which is lurking here below the surface: if you want transformational leadership vote Democrat because you'll at least experience the transformation from one transactionalism to another. This, of couse, is the old lesser-of-two-evils argument with a hat on.
The two party system thrives on artifice and political blackmail.
February 15, 2004
Kill your television
Last week, in a post entitled "The American Taliban", it was fantasized that one day conservatives would finally grow tired of their crusade to clean up television programming, and decide to clean house instead by throwing away their televisions or perhaps even hanging them from the trees as the Taliban once did. It is a pleasant surprise to see that conservative youth have heard the call. Kyle Williams now advises his readers to toss out their televisions.
Of course, in this, conservatives are behind the curve, but, as they say, better late than never. Left wing media activists have been wantonly smashing televisions in principled acts of destructive consumerism for well over a year. The question now is who will be the first to storm into and occupy the studios of a major television network.
This most interesting facet of this confluence of interests and demands on the issue of the media from the far left and the far right is that each group believes the media are biased in the direction of the other's position. The right wing is sickened that the media glorify liberal secularism and its loose morals, while the left are fed up with television's prudish conservatism and political naivety. These conflicting claims raise a number of questions. Will groups on the left and right realize that it is in their mutual interests to form grassroots alliances across traditional partisan boundaries in order to wage a more effective war against the national media? Or will partisanship prevent them from recognizing what is in their own best interests? Could it be that the standard forms of media criticism on the left and right prevent these groups from recognizing their implicit affiliation? If the media alienate and offend both conservatives and liberals, as they clearly do, is this not evidence that they are in some sense non-partisan?
Television content only alienates factions of the television viewing audience. Whatever the program, some will say "tune in" and others will say "turn it off." Demographically targeted television advertising demonstrates that television programming lives parasitically off of the fragmentation of the public. Balkin has effectively shown that the apologists of the traditional media project fear of this actual fragmentation upon new media forms which in fact subvert it. The form of television, on the other hand, alienates without regard to partisan proclivities. It need not even be turned on to achieve this effect. If you have a television, its presence and placement likely dominate entire rooms of your house or apartment. From this, it seems obvious that simply changing the channel will not fundamentally change the social order which produces the media-programming you dislike. Today, television controls us, we do not control it.
However, the fact that so many groups are now working to change the face of broadcast and cable television shows not that more people have reocognized the importance of civic involvement and media reform, but rather that few are willing to throw away their televisions.
We haven't given up faith in TV just yet.
Of course, in this, conservatives are behind the curve, but, as they say, better late than never. Left wing media activists have been wantonly smashing televisions in principled acts of destructive consumerism for well over a year. The question now is who will be the first to storm into and occupy the studios of a major television network.
This most interesting facet of this confluence of interests and demands on the issue of the media from the far left and the far right is that each group believes the media are biased in the direction of the other's position. The right wing is sickened that the media glorify liberal secularism and its loose morals, while the left are fed up with television's prudish conservatism and political naivety. These conflicting claims raise a number of questions. Will groups on the left and right realize that it is in their mutual interests to form grassroots alliances across traditional partisan boundaries in order to wage a more effective war against the national media? Or will partisanship prevent them from recognizing what is in their own best interests? Could it be that the standard forms of media criticism on the left and right prevent these groups from recognizing their implicit affiliation? If the media alienate and offend both conservatives and liberals, as they clearly do, is this not evidence that they are in some sense non-partisan?
Television content only alienates factions of the television viewing audience. Whatever the program, some will say "tune in" and others will say "turn it off." Demographically targeted television advertising demonstrates that television programming lives parasitically off of the fragmentation of the public. Balkin has effectively shown that the apologists of the traditional media project fear of this actual fragmentation upon new media forms which in fact subvert it. The form of television, on the other hand, alienates without regard to partisan proclivities. It need not even be turned on to achieve this effect. If you have a television, its presence and placement likely dominate entire rooms of your house or apartment. From this, it seems obvious that simply changing the channel will not fundamentally change the social order which produces the media-programming you dislike. Today, television controls us, we do not control it.
However, the fact that so many groups are now working to change the face of broadcast and cable television shows not that more people have reocognized the importance of civic involvement and media reform, but rather that few are willing to throw away their televisions.
We haven't given up faith in TV just yet.
February 14, 2004
On a recent altercation between a neocon and a paleolib
Lou Dobbs' interview this week with James Glassman of the AEI is noteworthy for a number of reasons, the least among them that Dobbs and Glassman were at each others throats. Dobbs took issue with an article Glassman wrote, entitled "Exporting Lou Dobbs", which began: "What's gotten into Lou Dobbs? Once a sensible, if self-important and sycophantic, CNN anchor, he has suddenly become a table-thumping protectionist." Dobbs understandably had a score to settle when he invited Glassman on, and the exchange is worth a read, for it makes one wonder how the anchor would respond to hard criticism from the left.
Even though he is one of the few cable news anchors who consistently stands up for the interests of the working class, and though he likely admires Dennis Kucinich for pledging to withdraw the United States from NAFTA and the WTO, Lou Dobbs is reviled by many on the left, and not without reason. However, Dobbs' program is not so much racist and ethnocentric (as recently asserted over at The Liquid List), as it is chauvinistic and xenophobic. So much is apparent from the very titles of his three running reports: "Made in America," "Exporting America" and "Broken Borders." Dobbs' has a legitimate gripe with the fact that the United States exports legal jobs and imports illegal workers, but, as has been noted here before, he prefers to blame immigrants and foreigners for the decisions made by US policy elites, and desires to paper over the structural flaws of American capitalism with border control. Oliver at TLL elaborates what are likely the feelings of a great many people on this precise issue. However, so-called economic patriotism could be a powerful tool for the left, a rhetorical conduit into the fragile minds of mainstream conservatives. Which brings us back to Glassman.
Oliver refers to Glassman as the "wackjob from the AEI." The epithet is apt, but we should recognize that Glassman is quite mainstream, as his rap sheet shows. His record testifies to the incestuousness of the media industry and the right wing fifth column which has grown up inside it. The question remains as to why he was so hard on Lou, after all, they were on a first name basis. Given that he refers to Paul O'Neill as an "inept screwball . . . treacherous and vindictive," and advocates that Canada "liberate" its health care system, he probably cannot not see Dobbs as a "table thumping protectionist."
But why right now?
Let's wager an explanation. Two weeks ago Glassman, a cynical free market fanatic, wrote an article entitled "Three Mysteries of Iraq" in which he pronounced "the truth about the emperor's new clothes." He explains that Bush was not only fooled by his intelligence handlers before the war, but also that he is being fooled by those who argue that things are going just fine, and everything's unfolding according to plan now in the post-war. As a solution to the problem, Glassman proposes finding an appropriate scapegoat somewhere in the intelligence bureaucracy. (Is it not delectable that right wing anti-Stalinists always secretly desire show trials?) Glassman must have recieved a deluge of negative email and comment from his readers and colleagues. Not only did he admit the opposite of the approved right wing conservative Republican war narrative, but he openly discussed political strategy, which is taboo in many of his circles. Glassman knew as much, he states, ""my friends on the right are probably screaming." The suspicion here is that he got more than he bargained for. A week passed but the response kept pouring in.
For the AEI, Glassman writes a few articles a week, sometimes only one, and he rarely publishes more than one article on the same day. In the last six months he has done the latter on two occasions. On one he attacks George Soros, on the other he attacks Dobbs. The former occurs two weeks after praising one of the President's many spending policies in action, the latter two weeks after admiting the obvious concerning the issue of Iraq.
This demonstrates one of the simplest operations of the herd mentality prevalent among the amateur intellectuals who populate the news columns and think tanks: individuals who transgress the herd's ideological code realign themselves, through a kind of ideological penance, by maligning the herd's avowed opponents.
To have no principles, and to be able to defend them, that makes the ideologue.
Even though he is one of the few cable news anchors who consistently stands up for the interests of the working class, and though he likely admires Dennis Kucinich for pledging to withdraw the United States from NAFTA and the WTO, Lou Dobbs is reviled by many on the left, and not without reason. However, Dobbs' program is not so much racist and ethnocentric (as recently asserted over at The Liquid List), as it is chauvinistic and xenophobic. So much is apparent from the very titles of his three running reports: "Made in America," "Exporting America" and "Broken Borders." Dobbs' has a legitimate gripe with the fact that the United States exports legal jobs and imports illegal workers, but, as has been noted here before, he prefers to blame immigrants and foreigners for the decisions made by US policy elites, and desires to paper over the structural flaws of American capitalism with border control. Oliver at TLL elaborates what are likely the feelings of a great many people on this precise issue. However, so-called economic patriotism could be a powerful tool for the left, a rhetorical conduit into the fragile minds of mainstream conservatives. Which brings us back to Glassman.
Oliver refers to Glassman as the "wackjob from the AEI." The epithet is apt, but we should recognize that Glassman is quite mainstream, as his rap sheet shows. His record testifies to the incestuousness of the media industry and the right wing fifth column which has grown up inside it. The question remains as to why he was so hard on Lou, after all, they were on a first name basis. Given that he refers to Paul O'Neill as an "inept screwball . . . treacherous and vindictive," and advocates that Canada "liberate" its health care system, he probably cannot not see Dobbs as a "table thumping protectionist."
But why right now?
Let's wager an explanation. Two weeks ago Glassman, a cynical free market fanatic, wrote an article entitled "Three Mysteries of Iraq" in which he pronounced "the truth about the emperor's new clothes." He explains that Bush was not only fooled by his intelligence handlers before the war, but also that he is being fooled by those who argue that things are going just fine, and everything's unfolding according to plan now in the post-war. As a solution to the problem, Glassman proposes finding an appropriate scapegoat somewhere in the intelligence bureaucracy. (Is it not delectable that right wing anti-Stalinists always secretly desire show trials?) Glassman must have recieved a deluge of negative email and comment from his readers and colleagues. Not only did he admit the opposite of the approved right wing conservative Republican war narrative, but he openly discussed political strategy, which is taboo in many of his circles. Glassman knew as much, he states, ""my friends on the right are probably screaming." The suspicion here is that he got more than he bargained for. A week passed but the response kept pouring in.
For the AEI, Glassman writes a few articles a week, sometimes only one, and he rarely publishes more than one article on the same day. In the last six months he has done the latter on two occasions. On one he attacks George Soros, on the other he attacks Dobbs. The former occurs two weeks after praising one of the President's many spending policies in action, the latter two weeks after admiting the obvious concerning the issue of Iraq.
This demonstrates one of the simplest operations of the herd mentality prevalent among the amateur intellectuals who populate the news columns and think tanks: individuals who transgress the herd's ideological code realign themselves, through a kind of ideological penance, by maligning the herd's avowed opponents.
To have no principles, and to be able to defend them, that makes the ideologue.
February 12, 2004
Love your government as yourself
As the framers of the US constitution well knew, government is the single greatest threat to human liberty on earth. Politicians, however, are mostly of the opinion that only their opponents represent such a threat. Similarly with ideologues. George W. Bush, on the other hand, thinks government is a force for good. Indeed, both liberals and conservatives believe that government would be a force for good if only they were in control of it. This is an illusion of power. Nonetheless, the mainstream for the most part agree with the President when he asserts that the expansion of government is good when it enhances security, though many may oppose the precise fashion in which his administration has expanded it. Everyone should therefore read James Bovard's analysis of the still expanding Transportation Security Administration.
Though it may be a monster, the TSA cannot expand at will. For instance, the bureaucrat charged with overseeing the production of the CAPPS II airline passenger screening system recently resigned amid growing criticism of the project. (Gods help us when the vanity of our officials is the last line of defense against government-creep.) Details about the GAO's report on CAPPS II are already leaking into the press, though they are getting scant attention in the main. The LA Times story is in the technology section. USA Today relegates its coverage to travel. CAPPS II, as you're likely aware, would label every airline passenger with a color coding to represent the level of threat they pose, based upon variously collected personal files and records, all on the assumption that this will help sift out the terrorists from the masses. It is a cross between the Department of Homeland Security's terrorism "Advisory System," the stop-light, and a totalitarian nightmare. Are you green, yellow or red?
CAPPS II is here to remind us that society is a prison. The security checkpoint is a gate in the panopticon. CAPPS II is its modernization. Perhaps we the people should devise a civic advisory system to represent the level of threat posed by our government's apparatus and its advocates. Red alert, Congress is in session.
Will the middle class simply give up its rights as the French aristocracy did its privileges? Some are prepared to do so on condition that our elected officials suffer the same indignity. The situation has become so acute that some even willingly embrace totalitarian controls just to ensure scrutiny of government. This is the thrust, for example, of Rupert Goodwins' critique of Charlie Stross's The Panopticon Singularity, which is a survey of the technologies constitutive of what has come to be called the surveillance society.
Not surprisingly Goodwins' capitulation is based on a misconception of Bentham's ideal panopticon. He writes, "In Bentham's vitreous world, the prison guards are exempted from the regime of universal observation: in Stross' singularity, they're part of the herd." Thus Goodwins' cheer in the face of Stross' thesis. However, he should reread his Bentham. There are no prison guards in the panopticon. People are induced to censor and restrain themselves by being led to believe that they are always under inspection.
Bentham writes: "Ideal perfection, if that were the object, would require that each person should actually be in that predicament [i.e. being under surveillance], during every instant of time. This being impossible, the next thing to be wished for is, that, at every instant, seeing reason to believe as much, and not being able to satisfy himself to the contrary, he should conceive himself to be so [i.e. under surveillance]." In other words, the panopticon functions not by a literal regime of permanent observation, but by architecturally inducing the illusion that you are always being observed. A similar ruse is played on the public today with the help of fake security cameras and television talk shows.
In this way too, government smothers liberty with the illusion of security.
Though it may be a monster, the TSA cannot expand at will. For instance, the bureaucrat charged with overseeing the production of the CAPPS II airline passenger screening system recently resigned amid growing criticism of the project. (Gods help us when the vanity of our officials is the last line of defense against government-creep.) Details about the GAO's report on CAPPS II are already leaking into the press, though they are getting scant attention in the main. The LA Times story is in the technology section. USA Today relegates its coverage to travel. CAPPS II, as you're likely aware, would label every airline passenger with a color coding to represent the level of threat they pose, based upon variously collected personal files and records, all on the assumption that this will help sift out the terrorists from the masses. It is a cross between the Department of Homeland Security's terrorism "Advisory System," the stop-light, and a totalitarian nightmare. Are you green, yellow or red?
CAPPS II is here to remind us that society is a prison. The security checkpoint is a gate in the panopticon. CAPPS II is its modernization. Perhaps we the people should devise a civic advisory system to represent the level of threat posed by our government's apparatus and its advocates. Red alert, Congress is in session.
Will the middle class simply give up its rights as the French aristocracy did its privileges? Some are prepared to do so on condition that our elected officials suffer the same indignity. The situation has become so acute that some even willingly embrace totalitarian controls just to ensure scrutiny of government. This is the thrust, for example, of Rupert Goodwins' critique of Charlie Stross's The Panopticon Singularity, which is a survey of the technologies constitutive of what has come to be called the surveillance society.
Not surprisingly Goodwins' capitulation is based on a misconception of Bentham's ideal panopticon. He writes, "In Bentham's vitreous world, the prison guards are exempted from the regime of universal observation: in Stross' singularity, they're part of the herd." Thus Goodwins' cheer in the face of Stross' thesis. However, he should reread his Bentham. There are no prison guards in the panopticon. People are induced to censor and restrain themselves by being led to believe that they are always under inspection.
Bentham writes: "Ideal perfection, if that were the object, would require that each person should actually be in that predicament [i.e. being under surveillance], during every instant of time. This being impossible, the next thing to be wished for is, that, at every instant, seeing reason to believe as much, and not being able to satisfy himself to the contrary, he should conceive himself to be so [i.e. under surveillance]." In other words, the panopticon functions not by a literal regime of permanent observation, but by architecturally inducing the illusion that you are always being observed. A similar ruse is played on the public today with the help of fake security cameras and television talk shows.
In this way too, government smothers liberty with the illusion of security.
February 11, 2004
Robots to replace newscasters
Just as in almost every other conceivable profession, mediocrity is the rule and norm in journalism today. So it is not surprising that our national media do little more than propagate rumors and myth, obfuscate historical context, and generally contribute to the overall social decay obvious in our civic environment. If they sometimes even speed that deterioration, so much the better. Paraphrasing Tenet, the "news," like our intelligence, is almost never completely right and often completely wrong. Otherwise media criticism would not be as prevalent as it is. However, since mainstream media criticism is for the most part conducted by journalists it suffers from their limitations, which are also the limitations of mainstream discourse.
This piece by Bob Garfield is hardly better than most, which is more than one would otherwise expect. Garfield pays homage to the myth of desensitization, and pulls out the laundry list of bipartisan gripes with the corporate news media: they are repetitive and patronizing, they glorify violence, they border upon the pornographic etc. However, he adds what he calls a "relatively new phenomenon," which he calls "logo-tization." This is not the "logo" of the Greek logos. It refers rather to the corporate insignia. This terminology, dictated by the discursive machinery of the corporate media (Garfield is a columnist for Advertising Age), is unfortunate, but then again so is the wording of its definition. Logo-tization, says Garfield, occurs "when a journalistic image ceases to tell a story but becomes a symbol for a story, denuding it both of its actual news significance and of its inherent drama." His examples are the Dean scream, Janet's breast and the security camera footage of a girl's abduction in Florida.
But the question remains as to whether any of these clips is "symbolic" of some supposed news story. What are the alleged stories? Janet Jackson's breast was seen on national television. Howard Dean yelped. A little girl was abducted. There is no sense in which the footage of these events symbolizes these "stories." In fact, the story was not that a little was abducted, but rather that her abduction was caught on tape; not that Jackson exposed her breast, but rather that this was broadcast on television; not that Dean raves, but that he does so in front of the cameras. Indeed, it is questionable whether there is any import to these alleged "stories" at all outside of the fact that they testify to the omnipresence of the aperture. These images do not symbolize and denude potential news stories, they substitute for actual news reporting and signify this very lack. They are media viruses.
Nonetheless, Garfield smartly ties "logotization" to the commodification of images. He nostalgically longs for the good old days, before the advent of the twenty-four hour news cycle, when images were still able to retain an aura, when we were still assured of the "permanence of history." Garfield compares the iconic images of the past with the commodified images of the present and finds the latter lacking in the proper dignity of the historical order: "They're manufactured, consumed and quickly replaced." They retain no monumental aspect. What's worse, and what Garfield wants not to admit, is that they infect the archive of iconic images through implicit or explicit parody.
The images themselves have hardly changed, at least in terms of content. The Hindenberg, the Challenger. The raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, the raising of the flag in the rubble of the World Trade Center. A man on the moon, a robot on Mars. Etc. A more important change has taken place in the public's relation to the news media. In other words, Garfield responds to the passing of the illusion that the media (especially broadcast and cable television news media) document - and are a documentation of - history. Who today tunes into FOX programming to find out what happened, rather than to see how certain conservatives are spinning the news? Who believes the New York Times contains all the news that's fit to print?
Moreover, the dominance of the image productively renders certain forms of human labor superfluous. The news anchor is an anachronism within the context of the new corporate media order. These people do little more than tick off insipid captions to extra-ordinary images. The news anchor is superfluous. A machine could be programmed to perform the same job for pennies on the dollar. The public likely further suspects that many journalists could be disposed of without adverse effect upon the "integrity" of the "news." The industry has responded by pushing opinionated and openly partisan news moderators who cynically retain the rhetoric of objectivity. And the journalistic herd reinvents itself accordingly.
This piece by Bob Garfield is hardly better than most, which is more than one would otherwise expect. Garfield pays homage to the myth of desensitization, and pulls out the laundry list of bipartisan gripes with the corporate news media: they are repetitive and patronizing, they glorify violence, they border upon the pornographic etc. However, he adds what he calls a "relatively new phenomenon," which he calls "logo-tization." This is not the "logo" of the Greek logos. It refers rather to the corporate insignia. This terminology, dictated by the discursive machinery of the corporate media (Garfield is a columnist for Advertising Age), is unfortunate, but then again so is the wording of its definition. Logo-tization, says Garfield, occurs "when a journalistic image ceases to tell a story but becomes a symbol for a story, denuding it both of its actual news significance and of its inherent drama." His examples are the Dean scream, Janet's breast and the security camera footage of a girl's abduction in Florida.
But the question remains as to whether any of these clips is "symbolic" of some supposed news story. What are the alleged stories? Janet Jackson's breast was seen on national television. Howard Dean yelped. A little girl was abducted. There is no sense in which the footage of these events symbolizes these "stories." In fact, the story was not that a little was abducted, but rather that her abduction was caught on tape; not that Jackson exposed her breast, but rather that this was broadcast on television; not that Dean raves, but that he does so in front of the cameras. Indeed, it is questionable whether there is any import to these alleged "stories" at all outside of the fact that they testify to the omnipresence of the aperture. These images do not symbolize and denude potential news stories, they substitute for actual news reporting and signify this very lack. They are media viruses.
Nonetheless, Garfield smartly ties "logotization" to the commodification of images. He nostalgically longs for the good old days, before the advent of the twenty-four hour news cycle, when images were still able to retain an aura, when we were still assured of the "permanence of history." Garfield compares the iconic images of the past with the commodified images of the present and finds the latter lacking in the proper dignity of the historical order: "They're manufactured, consumed and quickly replaced." They retain no monumental aspect. What's worse, and what Garfield wants not to admit, is that they infect the archive of iconic images through implicit or explicit parody.
The images themselves have hardly changed, at least in terms of content. The Hindenberg, the Challenger. The raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, the raising of the flag in the rubble of the World Trade Center. A man on the moon, a robot on Mars. Etc. A more important change has taken place in the public's relation to the news media. In other words, Garfield responds to the passing of the illusion that the media (especially broadcast and cable television news media) document - and are a documentation of - history. Who today tunes into FOX programming to find out what happened, rather than to see how certain conservatives are spinning the news? Who believes the New York Times contains all the news that's fit to print?
Moreover, the dominance of the image productively renders certain forms of human labor superfluous. The news anchor is an anachronism within the context of the new corporate media order. These people do little more than tick off insipid captions to extra-ordinary images. The news anchor is superfluous. A machine could be programmed to perform the same job for pennies on the dollar. The public likely further suspects that many journalists could be disposed of without adverse effect upon the "integrity" of the "news." The industry has responded by pushing opinionated and openly partisan news moderators who cynically retain the rhetoric of objectivity. And the journalistic herd reinvents itself accordingly.
February 10, 2004
The American Taliban
On the eve of the Iraq war, Slavoj Zizek pointed out that the public debate, spear-headed by media jingoes, was helping to obscure critical reflection upon, "what effectively goes on in our (own) societies, [up]on what kind of society is emerging HERE as the result of the 'war on terror'." He concludes: "The ultimate result of the war will be a change in our political order."
This change is well under way. Liberals eager to criticize the President have taken up the neoconservative banner and now demand a hard line on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Conservatives eager to support the President, on the other hand, retire from reality, fantasizing what the President might have said were he capable of saying what they desire to hear from him. Leftists romanticize the grassroots struggle for secular democratic reform in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Christian fundamentalists envy, and are inspired by the incipient power of religious leaders to contstrain such development.
Some changes are not so subtle.
Picture this: A female singer appears on national television. Her gestures are suggestive, her lyrics erotic, and her costume revealing. The public is aghast. For days after, they hurl insults at her and the television station which aired the performance. They vomit resentment and project their own oppression upon the objects of their derision. They demand such crudity be banned from the airwaves lest it thoroughly corrupt their culture. In the end, the government intervenes to protect the citiznery from its own perverse desires, and women are once again banned from singing on Afghanistan's state television. Perhaps American conservatives have begun taking cues from their counterparts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Though it is a given that ninety-nine percent of the product of the national culture industry is regurgitated trash, the sickness of American culture is more apparent in the mainstream reception of the spectacle than in the spectacles themselves. The hysteria which followed last week's Super Bowl should give one pause. Driven and stoked by ignorance mongers on talk radio and cable news, the fanatical reaction to the half time show continues unabated. Conservatives have already realized that if you want to change the content of television programming, it does not suffice to simply change the channel. Perhaps one day they will come to their senses and throw their televisions away, or hang them from the trees as the Taliban once did. At the moment, middle America is too dependent upon television, for everything from companionship to the formation of opinion, to do so. But the day may come.
There is nonetheless something deeply comical about the fact that conservatives take popular culture so seriously. They've yet to realize that it thrives off their resentment. The conservative fascination with popular culture is like an infant's infatuation with its own shit. Conservatives eat it up because they don't know any better.
This change is well under way. Liberals eager to criticize the President have taken up the neoconservative banner and now demand a hard line on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Conservatives eager to support the President, on the other hand, retire from reality, fantasizing what the President might have said were he capable of saying what they desire to hear from him. Leftists romanticize the grassroots struggle for secular democratic reform in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Christian fundamentalists envy, and are inspired by the incipient power of religious leaders to contstrain such development.
Some changes are not so subtle.
Picture this: A female singer appears on national television. Her gestures are suggestive, her lyrics erotic, and her costume revealing. The public is aghast. For days after, they hurl insults at her and the television station which aired the performance. They vomit resentment and project their own oppression upon the objects of their derision. They demand such crudity be banned from the airwaves lest it thoroughly corrupt their culture. In the end, the government intervenes to protect the citiznery from its own perverse desires, and women are once again banned from singing on Afghanistan's state television. Perhaps American conservatives have begun taking cues from their counterparts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Though it is a given that ninety-nine percent of the product of the national culture industry is regurgitated trash, the sickness of American culture is more apparent in the mainstream reception of the spectacle than in the spectacles themselves. The hysteria which followed last week's Super Bowl should give one pause. Driven and stoked by ignorance mongers on talk radio and cable news, the fanatical reaction to the half time show continues unabated. Conservatives have already realized that if you want to change the content of television programming, it does not suffice to simply change the channel. Perhaps one day they will come to their senses and throw their televisions away, or hang them from the trees as the Taliban once did. At the moment, middle America is too dependent upon television, for everything from companionship to the formation of opinion, to do so. But the day may come.
There is nonetheless something deeply comical about the fact that conservatives take popular culture so seriously. They've yet to realize that it thrives off their resentment. The conservative fascination with popular culture is like an infant's infatuation with its own shit. Conservatives eat it up because they don't know any better.
February 7, 2004
George Bush and the bi-partisan blackmail
For all the lipservice paid to diversity and openness, the ideological narrowness and strategic nearsightedness of left-liberalism is really quite astounding. In an open letter to Ralph Nader, the editors of the Nation advise against his mounting a presidential campaign, stating, "The context for an independent presidential bid is completely altered from 2000, when there was a real base for a protest candidate. The overwhelming mass of voters with progressive values . . . have only one focus this year: to beat Bush." These are people uninterested in radical social change. They are reformists in the worst sense of the term. However, they do touch upon one of the most deleterious effects the Bush presidency has had on the American public: almost everything left of center is united in opposition to it. The Democrats could not have manufactured a better situation for themselves. People who bowed out of bi-partisan politics and vowed never again to vote for one of the two duopoly parties are now set to vote for a Democrat just to ensure that Bush is unseated. Bush's presidency has meant the death of independent insurgency on the left. Indeed, this revolt seems even to have been coopted by the Democratic Party, in the form of Howard Dean.
In the furor to eject Bush from the White House, we must not forget that installing a Democrat there is hardly a solution to the problem which is the status quo of the political establishment in the United States. One of the ways in which the Republicran-Democratic duopoly maintains its political hegemony is by disenfranchising voters in turn. In 2000 liberals and left wingers fed up with the Democratic Party establishment cost Gore the election by either staying home or voting Green. In 2004, angry conservatives may just pay Bush the same favor. The fact that the readers and editors of the Nation likely have little to no cognizance of this illustrates just how narrow their ideological purview really is.
To assert that there is "no real base for a protest candidate" is willfully to deceive oneself. If Nationite leftists stuck to their principles, the base would now be larger than it was in 2000, now that so many right wingers have been alienated by the leadership of the Republican party. The base for a viable protest candidate would now be double what it was in 2000 if more so-called leftists were able to put principle above partisanship. Let's be clear: "Anybody but Bush" means "whatever piece of political trash the Democrats decide to float this time around." It is of no use to argue that this time around the election is especially crucial; every four years the Democrats argue that election of the Republican rival will be the end of the world, and that a vote for a third party is a vote for the Republicans.
Yet partisan Democrats probably do not fear that Bush will lead the country to ruin as much as they fear that Bush and the Republican Congress would finally get something right if Bush were to serve a second term, further endearing themselves to the US populace. On the other hand, those on the left who are prepared to act against principle, and have resigned themselves to voting for the lesser-evil Democrat, whoever that may be, probably believe that Bush would actually lead the country to ruin were he to get a second term. But if this, or something similar to it, were to happen, the situation would be ripe for the overthrow of the two party system as we know it. Would it not? Imagine going for broke and throwing your vote to Bush because you believe Bush would exascerbate various economic and social polarizations, and deepen political antagonisms, with the understanding that if this were to happen, real political and social upheaval would be easier to coax out of an ailing public. Or what? Put a Democrat in the White House? Why?
Independent liberals and leftists should not only be organizing to unseat Bush, they should be ferreting out disenfranchised conservatives who are now hell bent on overturning the order. These are people who have come to believe that there is little or no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties, precisely as many liberals and leftists were arguing just four years ago. Our politicians, both Republican and Democrat, are all too willing to malign partisan politics in the name of unity and Americanism. This should arouse suspicion. Bi-partisan politics is the problem, and extreme, rabid partisanship is the solution.
The real base for a "protest candidate" consists of every voter who has come to understand that Republicans and Democrats do not each offer half assed solutions to problems, but rather that together they redouble and compound such problems. In a so-called "news analysis" on the commission Bush has appointed to investigate the failure of US intelligence, David Sanger writes, "the commission's makeup seems to have been influenced more by a quest for political balance than for depth of knowledge." In other words, the panel is bi-partisan and it will accomplish nothing but a whitewash on the issue of executive malfeasance. But Sanger, a New York Times establishmentarian, nonetheless concludes his "analysis" by impotently capitulating to "the necessities of politics and power."
This is precisely the logic which leads the disgusted and the disenchanted, year after year, and though their better judgment advises them against it, to cast a vote against the other guy (and) in favor of the two party system. This is the spell that must be broken.
In the furor to eject Bush from the White House, we must not forget that installing a Democrat there is hardly a solution to the problem which is the status quo of the political establishment in the United States. One of the ways in which the Republicran-Democratic duopoly maintains its political hegemony is by disenfranchising voters in turn. In 2000 liberals and left wingers fed up with the Democratic Party establishment cost Gore the election by either staying home or voting Green. In 2004, angry conservatives may just pay Bush the same favor. The fact that the readers and editors of the Nation likely have little to no cognizance of this illustrates just how narrow their ideological purview really is.
To assert that there is "no real base for a protest candidate" is willfully to deceive oneself. If Nationite leftists stuck to their principles, the base would now be larger than it was in 2000, now that so many right wingers have been alienated by the leadership of the Republican party. The base for a viable protest candidate would now be double what it was in 2000 if more so-called leftists were able to put principle above partisanship. Let's be clear: "Anybody but Bush" means "whatever piece of political trash the Democrats decide to float this time around." It is of no use to argue that this time around the election is especially crucial; every four years the Democrats argue that election of the Republican rival will be the end of the world, and that a vote for a third party is a vote for the Republicans.
Yet partisan Democrats probably do not fear that Bush will lead the country to ruin as much as they fear that Bush and the Republican Congress would finally get something right if Bush were to serve a second term, further endearing themselves to the US populace. On the other hand, those on the left who are prepared to act against principle, and have resigned themselves to voting for the lesser-evil Democrat, whoever that may be, probably believe that Bush would actually lead the country to ruin were he to get a second term. But if this, or something similar to it, were to happen, the situation would be ripe for the overthrow of the two party system as we know it. Would it not? Imagine going for broke and throwing your vote to Bush because you believe Bush would exascerbate various economic and social polarizations, and deepen political antagonisms, with the understanding that if this were to happen, real political and social upheaval would be easier to coax out of an ailing public. Or what? Put a Democrat in the White House? Why?
Independent liberals and leftists should not only be organizing to unseat Bush, they should be ferreting out disenfranchised conservatives who are now hell bent on overturning the order. These are people who have come to believe that there is little or no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties, precisely as many liberals and leftists were arguing just four years ago. Our politicians, both Republican and Democrat, are all too willing to malign partisan politics in the name of unity and Americanism. This should arouse suspicion. Bi-partisan politics is the problem, and extreme, rabid partisanship is the solution.
The real base for a "protest candidate" consists of every voter who has come to understand that Republicans and Democrats do not each offer half assed solutions to problems, but rather that together they redouble and compound such problems. In a so-called "news analysis" on the commission Bush has appointed to investigate the failure of US intelligence, David Sanger writes, "the commission's makeup seems to have been influenced more by a quest for political balance than for depth of knowledge." In other words, the panel is bi-partisan and it will accomplish nothing but a whitewash on the issue of executive malfeasance. But Sanger, a New York Times establishmentarian, nonetheless concludes his "analysis" by impotently capitulating to "the necessities of politics and power."
This is precisely the logic which leads the disgusted and the disenchanted, year after year, and though their better judgment advises them against it, to cast a vote against the other guy (and) in favor of the two party system. This is the spell that must be broken.
February 6, 2004
'Media bias' is a media virus
The advent of a notion like "media literacy" demonstrates that US citizens are increasingly suspicious of the industry which feeds them its news. And the press-fakers are afraid. Polls which show that young people increasingly get their news from Jay Leno and The Daily Show do not demonstrate that young people are somehow uninterested in what's going on in their world. Rather, young people understand that "news-reporting" is a joke. The Bush administration is right to view the media as yet another special interest.
When mainstreamers talk about media bias, they are talking about the political prejudices of reporters and persons in the media industry, not the industry itself, or even the medium itself. The greater portion of the public buys into these arguments, and even folk on the far left are not immune to the fantasy that the medium is inherently biased toward their own positions. Such mysticism is hardly preferable to typically superficial conservative media analysis. When people talk about "media bias" they refer for the most part to the personal political biases of reporters and industry bureaucrats. However, such bias has little or nothing to do with the medium itself. And while there are many cases in which it would seem proper to bring the messenger before the firing squad, it seems also more likely that "media bias" is non-partisan because it is discursive.
Take a well worn phrase like "Bush hatred," for example. One is tempted to refer to such syntagms as memes, but 'meme' is not sufficiently pejorative. Ipecac has previously termed such phrases 'media viruses' because they substitute themselves for explanation and relieve the corporate commentator of his or her duty to conduct serious thoughtful analysis. These are better indicators of anything that could be termed "media bias" than even the complete voting records of journalists and reporters. The latter may confirm suspicions regarding a specific hack's (or rag's) often blatantly obvious political biases, but it would leave us in the dark on the issue of the media qua media. Media catch phrases, on the other hand, illustrate the industry's fundamental limitations: the tendancy to reductive simplification and the corresponding anti-intellectualism, sensationalism, inability or unwillingness to indulge in extensive research of various issues or topics, faulty fact checking, the fascination with violence, the pernicious effects of corporate advertising etc.
"Bush hatred" is a media virus, a result of the biases of the medium itself. As such it is non-partisan. By convention, Republicans and conservatives decry it, while Democrats and liberals explain it away. It is neither an asset nor a liability. For all the attention it receives, it is little more than journalistic shorthand. While there are certainly many individuals who justly hate the President, "Bush hatred" signifies not this phenomenon, but rather a specific discursive limit. Coined by Republican party loyalists, it signifies the limits of their partisan comprehension, the fact that they cannot understand why someone would dislike their favored party's leader.
Naive liberals have proudly risen to the occassion and attempted to make the term their own. This strategy, however, will fail. Unlike "nigger" or "fag," terms which have been effectively appropriated by groups they were orginally used to slander, it will never be taboo for partisan Bush jingoes to utter terms like "Bush hatred" or "Bush hater" within the confines of a mainstream political debate. Unless . . .
When mainstreamers talk about media bias, they are talking about the political prejudices of reporters and persons in the media industry, not the industry itself, or even the medium itself. The greater portion of the public buys into these arguments, and even folk on the far left are not immune to the fantasy that the medium is inherently biased toward their own positions. Such mysticism is hardly preferable to typically superficial conservative media analysis. When people talk about "media bias" they refer for the most part to the personal political biases of reporters and industry bureaucrats. However, such bias has little or nothing to do with the medium itself. And while there are many cases in which it would seem proper to bring the messenger before the firing squad, it seems also more likely that "media bias" is non-partisan because it is discursive.
Take a well worn phrase like "Bush hatred," for example. One is tempted to refer to such syntagms as memes, but 'meme' is not sufficiently pejorative. Ipecac has previously termed such phrases 'media viruses' because they substitute themselves for explanation and relieve the corporate commentator of his or her duty to conduct serious thoughtful analysis. These are better indicators of anything that could be termed "media bias" than even the complete voting records of journalists and reporters. The latter may confirm suspicions regarding a specific hack's (or rag's) often blatantly obvious political biases, but it would leave us in the dark on the issue of the media qua media. Media catch phrases, on the other hand, illustrate the industry's fundamental limitations: the tendancy to reductive simplification and the corresponding anti-intellectualism, sensationalism, inability or unwillingness to indulge in extensive research of various issues or topics, faulty fact checking, the fascination with violence, the pernicious effects of corporate advertising etc.
"Bush hatred" is a media virus, a result of the biases of the medium itself. As such it is non-partisan. By convention, Republicans and conservatives decry it, while Democrats and liberals explain it away. It is neither an asset nor a liability. For all the attention it receives, it is little more than journalistic shorthand. While there are certainly many individuals who justly hate the President, "Bush hatred" signifies not this phenomenon, but rather a specific discursive limit. Coined by Republican party loyalists, it signifies the limits of their partisan comprehension, the fact that they cannot understand why someone would dislike their favored party's leader.
Naive liberals have proudly risen to the occassion and attempted to make the term their own. This strategy, however, will fail. Unlike "nigger" or "fag," terms which have been effectively appropriated by groups they were orginally used to slander, it will never be taboo for partisan Bush jingoes to utter terms like "Bush hatred" or "Bush hater" within the confines of a mainstream political debate. Unless . . .
Media illiteracy
Mainstream media criticism, which is, of course, the mainstream media's criticism of itself, rarely strays far from narrow partisan interpretations of manifest content. Some (admittedly mediocre) commentators do go so far as to dredge the social unconscious for latent meaning. And others even note how aesthetics can color the media's reception of an event, which is nothing other than the typical reporter's tendency to be distracted from the real work at hand by small shiny objects and changes in fashion. Formal criticism, on the other hand, is for the most part confined to the obligatory sneer aimed at sound bites and news tickers, and the occassional assertion that news organizations are beholden to the whims of their advertisers and corporate underwriters. On the whole, the corporate media's take on itself is shamefully primitive. The situation has become so critical that fact checking must be applauded when it actually takes place. Why?
The right has been allowed, almost unimpeded, to control the terms and premises of the debate. According to conventional conservative wisdom, the mass media "slant reports in favor of the liberal position on issues." By the time liberals got around to responding to this criticism, the ideological make-up of the media landscape had changed. And so they wondered, "What liberal media?" Pointing to radio personalities like Limbaugh and Hannity, and the inception of FOX News, liberals now charge that much of the mainstream media is in fact slanted toward the conservative position on issues. This does little to counteract conservative influence within the debate however, because in so doing liberals accept the conservative position in theory, and simply make the appropriate substitutions in practice. It is for this reason that 'media bias' has become synonymous with partisan political bias.
Mainstream media criticism, whether vented on right wing radio or scribbled in the liberal press, appears primitive because this theory is woefully outdated. More than twenty years ago, conservatives felt their positions were getting the short end of the media schtick. They determined that the press and mass media were overwhelmingly liberal, and to this day conclude that the personal political prejudices of reporters and other assorted industry slime are responsible for the media's obvious shortcomings. Yet these are the same folks who cry about political polarization and the culture wars of the 50/50 nation. The media industry is magically insulated from the most broad social trends conservatives allow themselves to recognize. This is not coincidental. It allows conservative media critics to maintain the fantasy that they are not mainstream, despite all evidence to the contrary. Really, conservatives perceive no irony when Limbaugh, with twenty million people listening, denounces mainstream media. Similarly with cable news folk like Scarborough and O'reilly. For the sake of perspective on what "mainstream" is, it could be noted that the New York Times has a circulation of less than two million.
Mainstream conservatism + mainstream liberalism = widespread media illiteracy.
The right has been allowed, almost unimpeded, to control the terms and premises of the debate. According to conventional conservative wisdom, the mass media "slant reports in favor of the liberal position on issues." By the time liberals got around to responding to this criticism, the ideological make-up of the media landscape had changed. And so they wondered, "What liberal media?" Pointing to radio personalities like Limbaugh and Hannity, and the inception of FOX News, liberals now charge that much of the mainstream media is in fact slanted toward the conservative position on issues. This does little to counteract conservative influence within the debate however, because in so doing liberals accept the conservative position in theory, and simply make the appropriate substitutions in practice. It is for this reason that 'media bias' has become synonymous with partisan political bias.
Mainstream media criticism, whether vented on right wing radio or scribbled in the liberal press, appears primitive because this theory is woefully outdated. More than twenty years ago, conservatives felt their positions were getting the short end of the media schtick. They determined that the press and mass media were overwhelmingly liberal, and to this day conclude that the personal political prejudices of reporters and other assorted industry slime are responsible for the media's obvious shortcomings. Yet these are the same folks who cry about political polarization and the culture wars of the 50/50 nation. The media industry is magically insulated from the most broad social trends conservatives allow themselves to recognize. This is not coincidental. It allows conservative media critics to maintain the fantasy that they are not mainstream, despite all evidence to the contrary. Really, conservatives perceive no irony when Limbaugh, with twenty million people listening, denounces mainstream media. Similarly with cable news folk like Scarborough and O'reilly. For the sake of perspective on what "mainstream" is, it could be noted that the New York Times has a circulation of less than two million.
Mainstream conservatism + mainstream liberalism = widespread media illiteracy.
February 4, 2004
In praise of witch hunting
Last week a federal judge struck down part of the Patriot Act, ruling, according to the Guardian, that "a measure of the act that bars giving "expert advice or assistance" to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations is too vague, threatening First and Fifth Amendment rights." The reception of the decision has been predictably split along partisan lines. Progressives applauded and conservatives grumbled. Upon closer inspection, however, it becomes clear that the right wing is likely conflicted on this issue. After all, without the ruling Richard Perle (link via TPM) could have been prosecuted for lending his expert opinion and advice to known terrorist organizations.
This gives one pause. Liberals, and many on the left are suspicious of measures like the Patriot Act, and rightly so. Even if the Patriot Act is currently not being abused, surely it could be abused, and therefore it should be allowed to expire so that more reasonable and well thought out legislation could take its place. The Patriot Act is thus, in many quarters, considered dangerous because of its possible unintended consequences. However, these are not necessarily all negative. We could be sneaking peeks at our representatives, or the stooges in the White House, or the bureaucrats in the Pentagon. The Patriot Act, or something similar to it, could be quite useful in the hands of an engaged citizenry highly suspicious of the corrupt government which lords over it.
Let the witch-hunting begin!
This gives one pause. Liberals, and many on the left are suspicious of measures like the Patriot Act, and rightly so. Even if the Patriot Act is currently not being abused, surely it could be abused, and therefore it should be allowed to expire so that more reasonable and well thought out legislation could take its place. The Patriot Act is thus, in many quarters, considered dangerous because of its possible unintended consequences. However, these are not necessarily all negative. We could be sneaking peeks at our representatives, or the stooges in the White House, or the bureaucrats in the Pentagon. The Patriot Act, or something similar to it, could be quite useful in the hands of an engaged citizenry highly suspicious of the corrupt government which lords over it.
Let the witch-hunting begin!
February 3, 2004
The people and the politicos, superstition and paranoia
One curious feature of the United States is that its citizenry is extremely superstitious. Superstition cuts across class, race and gender lines, and infects political discourse. Many mainstream commentators, for instance, are unwilling to draw attention to the fact that the prospects for Bush's reelection are looking pretty grim at the moment. Liberals likely don't want to jinx the lesser-evil Democrat, while conservatives probably fear that any such utterance would jinx the President's still-emerging campaign.
In any case, partisan Republicans are noticably scared, for they have set themselves down the path of recovery. Step one: admit the President has a problem. (If you expect to hear the President and/or his many loyalists admit that he has done wrong, don't hold your breath, that's step ten.) More than three years after George W. Bush was appointed to the Office of the Presidency under extremely suspicious circumstances, conservatives are finally beginning to realize that the President has a credibility problem. Acknowledgment of this credibility problem, and the fact that it is perceived as constitutive of the Bush Presidency by innumerable people across the country and around the world, may just be a prerequisite for any reasonable explanation of so-called "Bush hatred." Thus it is not surprising that many conservative minds simply gave up or broke down and brushed "Bush hatred" off by projecting their own irrational partisanship upon those afflicted with the malaise.
Conservative misgivings about the Bush Presidency are more readily aired now in the aftermath of David Kay's resignation and his remarks to the effect that Iraq did not possess the alleged WMD. Yet Kay's blanket admission of guilt ("we were all wrong") conveniently exonerates the Bush administration of any and all responsibility for its own errors of judgment. Thus does the blame game continue. Liberals blame the administration and the neoconservative ideolgical bubble. Conservatives blame the CIA and the intelligence bureaucracy. Let's not forget, in our zealotry, to blame the Congress which gave the President a blank check to wage his war (a check which he has yet to cash, let alone fill out), or the citizenry who put all these people in office, or that reactionary faction of the public which attended pro-war rallies organized by the likes of Clear Channel radio.
George W. Bush is weak on national security and defense. He and Cheney now appear in an especially bad light, to say the least, since just days before Kay's "revelations" they were still claiming that "we have good intelligence." Fortunately, the White House will always come up with the short end of the stick in the blame game between the CIA and the administration. Even if only the CIA were faulted with producing dangerously inaccurate intelligence, Bush is still culpable because, in making his case for war, he determined that the intelligence on Iraq's WMD was accurate and trustworthy, when in fact it wasn't, or does not appear to be. He misjudged a potential threat because he let himself be misguided by his advisors. The standard retort to this criticism is that it is better to err on the side of caution. Yet, when the stakes are so high, it is better still not to have erred at all.
Bush's naivety differentiates him from the morass of neocon commentators who have no qualms about attacking the intelligence bureaucracy and the State Department on even the flimsiest ideological grounds. Perle, for instance, was recently quoted in the New York Times as saying, "I have long thought our intelligence in the Gulf has been woefully inadequate." Given Perle's influence, which is both great and small, the Bush administration must have been aware that CIA intelligence was not exactly reliable, despite the fact that it was rarely disputed by the international community. Thus the necessity of the various alternative intelligence aggregators established by the administration (for example, the famed Office of Special Plans). This intelligence, however, was no more accurate than that being spit out by the intelligence agencies' bureaucratic machinery. On the contrary, it paranoically exaggerated the CIA's distortions.
Appearances aside, this may not be an instance of Reagan's Bind. It cannot be expected that the president (or, in any case, this president, unlike his father) be a competent judge and interpreter of raw intelligence. That's why he has advisors. On the other hand, his advisors seem not so malicious as they were cynical.
Happily, this cynicism is beginning to rub off on conservative voters.
In any case, partisan Republicans are noticably scared, for they have set themselves down the path of recovery. Step one: admit the President has a problem. (If you expect to hear the President and/or his many loyalists admit that he has done wrong, don't hold your breath, that's step ten.) More than three years after George W. Bush was appointed to the Office of the Presidency under extremely suspicious circumstances, conservatives are finally beginning to realize that the President has a credibility problem. Acknowledgment of this credibility problem, and the fact that it is perceived as constitutive of the Bush Presidency by innumerable people across the country and around the world, may just be a prerequisite for any reasonable explanation of so-called "Bush hatred." Thus it is not surprising that many conservative minds simply gave up or broke down and brushed "Bush hatred" off by projecting their own irrational partisanship upon those afflicted with the malaise.
Conservative misgivings about the Bush Presidency are more readily aired now in the aftermath of David Kay's resignation and his remarks to the effect that Iraq did not possess the alleged WMD. Yet Kay's blanket admission of guilt ("we were all wrong") conveniently exonerates the Bush administration of any and all responsibility for its own errors of judgment. Thus does the blame game continue. Liberals blame the administration and the neoconservative ideolgical bubble. Conservatives blame the CIA and the intelligence bureaucracy. Let's not forget, in our zealotry, to blame the Congress which gave the President a blank check to wage his war (a check which he has yet to cash, let alone fill out), or the citizenry who put all these people in office, or that reactionary faction of the public which attended pro-war rallies organized by the likes of Clear Channel radio.
George W. Bush is weak on national security and defense. He and Cheney now appear in an especially bad light, to say the least, since just days before Kay's "revelations" they were still claiming that "we have good intelligence." Fortunately, the White House will always come up with the short end of the stick in the blame game between the CIA and the administration. Even if only the CIA were faulted with producing dangerously inaccurate intelligence, Bush is still culpable because, in making his case for war, he determined that the intelligence on Iraq's WMD was accurate and trustworthy, when in fact it wasn't, or does not appear to be. He misjudged a potential threat because he let himself be misguided by his advisors. The standard retort to this criticism is that it is better to err on the side of caution. Yet, when the stakes are so high, it is better still not to have erred at all.
Bush's naivety differentiates him from the morass of neocon commentators who have no qualms about attacking the intelligence bureaucracy and the State Department on even the flimsiest ideological grounds. Perle, for instance, was recently quoted in the New York Times as saying, "I have long thought our intelligence in the Gulf has been woefully inadequate." Given Perle's influence, which is both great and small, the Bush administration must have been aware that CIA intelligence was not exactly reliable, despite the fact that it was rarely disputed by the international community. Thus the necessity of the various alternative intelligence aggregators established by the administration (for example, the famed Office of Special Plans). This intelligence, however, was no more accurate than that being spit out by the intelligence agencies' bureaucratic machinery. On the contrary, it paranoically exaggerated the CIA's distortions.
Appearances aside, this may not be an instance of Reagan's Bind. It cannot be expected that the president (or, in any case, this president, unlike his father) be a competent judge and interpreter of raw intelligence. That's why he has advisors. On the other hand, his advisors seem not so malicious as they were cynical.
Happily, this cynicism is beginning to rub off on conservative voters.
February 2, 2004
The tolerance of conservatives
One of the most interesting contradictions of the Republicans' conservative base surfaces on the twin issues of big media and media consolidation.
When the FCC approved the expansion of media conglomerates from 35 to 45 percent of the national market last summer, people from across the political spectrum rose up to denounce the changes. The NRA and conservative religious groups were suddenly aligned with mainstream liberals suspicious of the mass media and left wing media reform activists. The media were stunned to learn that huge swaths of the American population detested them, and they were dumbfounded when the Senate and Congress quickly sought to address people's concern on this issue and effectively overturn the rules changes by refusing to fund them. Yet the spending bill approved last week nonetheless funds a compromise rule change which allows "the FCC to raise the ownership threshold to 39%." Why?
In September, the Senate voted to block the FCC's proposed changes, but the House has yet to cast a definitive vote on the issue, despite, or rather because there is strong bipartisan support to second the Senate's agreement. (See this timeline for links to relevant documents.) It seems Hastert and Delay, with the Bush administration's support, blocked the vote in order to bail out the media conglomerates, specifically Viacam and News Corporation, CBS and FOX, who were already in violation of the old ownership caps, at around 38%. Talk about legalizing illegals. This is a clear example of corporations capturing their regulators. But it is quid pro quo. Let's not forget that CBS has become quite accustomed to heeding and anticipating the demands of the Republican leadership and conservative activists, whether in their actual programming (The Reagans) or in their advertising space (the illigitimate MoveOn ad).
From here we can glimpse the fissures in an apparently united conservative front. Consider the two most obvious examples of conservative media criticism. On the one hand, voices on the radio and elsewhere rail against the excesses and biases of the liberal press and national news broadcasters. On the other, organizations like the the Parents Television Council wage thoroughgoing crusades to make sure the media do not offend the tastes of a certain faction of the television-watching public. Perhaps surprisingly, these two groups come down on opposite sides of the fence on the issue of media expansion. Limbaugh, for instance, thinks consolidation will lead to more conservative programming. The PTC thinks such centralization will override localism and community controls on programming. What ties them together, however, is their fetishization of content at the expense of form.
Nonetheless, it is a conservative dilemma. On this issue, conservatives are torn between their prudery and partisanship on the one hand, and their instinct always to side with the interests of corporations over the interests of actual persons on the other. The backroom deal reached by Delay, Hastert and the Bush administration to legalize Viacom and News Corp. over and against the demands of the American public clearly demonstrates the low regard in which the Republican leadership holds its popular base, while the virtually non-existent outcry over this obvious abuse of power reveals just how oblivious that base is to the political corruption of its favored-party's leadership.
Many of today's conservatives undoubedtly consider themselves to be the heirs of the great awakening. Yet they're asleep at the wheel.
When the FCC approved the expansion of media conglomerates from 35 to 45 percent of the national market last summer, people from across the political spectrum rose up to denounce the changes. The NRA and conservative religious groups were suddenly aligned with mainstream liberals suspicious of the mass media and left wing media reform activists. The media were stunned to learn that huge swaths of the American population detested them, and they were dumbfounded when the Senate and Congress quickly sought to address people's concern on this issue and effectively overturn the rules changes by refusing to fund them. Yet the spending bill approved last week nonetheless funds a compromise rule change which allows "the FCC to raise the ownership threshold to 39%." Why?
In September, the Senate voted to block the FCC's proposed changes, but the House has yet to cast a definitive vote on the issue, despite, or rather because there is strong bipartisan support to second the Senate's agreement. (See this timeline for links to relevant documents.) It seems Hastert and Delay, with the Bush administration's support, blocked the vote in order to bail out the media conglomerates, specifically Viacam and News Corporation, CBS and FOX, who were already in violation of the old ownership caps, at around 38%. Talk about legalizing illegals. This is a clear example of corporations capturing their regulators. But it is quid pro quo. Let's not forget that CBS has become quite accustomed to heeding and anticipating the demands of the Republican leadership and conservative activists, whether in their actual programming (The Reagans) or in their advertising space (the illigitimate MoveOn ad).
From here we can glimpse the fissures in an apparently united conservative front. Consider the two most obvious examples of conservative media criticism. On the one hand, voices on the radio and elsewhere rail against the excesses and biases of the liberal press and national news broadcasters. On the other, organizations like the the Parents Television Council wage thoroughgoing crusades to make sure the media do not offend the tastes of a certain faction of the television-watching public. Perhaps surprisingly, these two groups come down on opposite sides of the fence on the issue of media expansion. Limbaugh, for instance, thinks consolidation will lead to more conservative programming. The PTC thinks such centralization will override localism and community controls on programming. What ties them together, however, is their fetishization of content at the expense of form.
Nonetheless, it is a conservative dilemma. On this issue, conservatives are torn between their prudery and partisanship on the one hand, and their instinct always to side with the interests of corporations over the interests of actual persons on the other. The backroom deal reached by Delay, Hastert and the Bush administration to legalize Viacom and News Corp. over and against the demands of the American public clearly demonstrates the low regard in which the Republican leadership holds its popular base, while the virtually non-existent outcry over this obvious abuse of power reveals just how oblivious that base is to the political corruption of its favored-party's leadership.
Many of today's conservatives undoubedtly consider themselves to be the heirs of the great awakening. Yet they're asleep at the wheel.


| PREVIOUS | NEXT | RANDOM | LIST SITES