Monday, January 31, 2005
If you read one thing today, read this article by Robert Wright(if you haven't already.)
There was a time, lo these many years ago (back in the 90's) when most people understood that globalization was a huge transition with lots of unintended consequences we need to be aware of and deal with, but it was inevitable and also held out a huge promise of progress for freedom, liberty and deomcracy and all that gooey good stuff our Preznit loves to talk about. The thinking went that capitalism held the keys to liberation and that while we were embarking on a somewhat unknown track, we had faith that our economic and political systems would win out as long as we were engaged.
Then along came 9/11 and "changed everything." The PNAC neocon crowd, who had always dissented from that argument, held sway with their belief that the US had to expand its influence through the use of hard power and force the gooey good stuff because otherwise it wouldn't happen.
They did not understand that it's our "idea" that is the compelling thing, not our awesome military and economic might, which exists not to spread freedom but to protect it. They have faith in their own ideology and their own power, but they have no faith in what this country stands for. Their reliance on things like torture bears that out. That is the fundamental error.
digby 1/31/2005 03:24:00 PM
Along with Mark Schmitt, I'm not a big fan of Lakoff's new book. As I've written many times, I think his analysis of the art and science of framing is right on the money, but I think his actual frames are just terrible. He's an idea man, not a political strategist. I'll repeat what I've said before. The mere fact that he frames the Democrats as "nurturant parents (mommies)" disqualifies him from political action. That frame is exactly what's killing us. It may be sexism or it may just be the times in which we live, but we should drop it like a hot potato.
The Republicans have an economic framing model that's very successful and we can learn from it. They sell an optimistic, simple philosophy of "if only the government would get out of the way you can be successful." This means that if you aren't successful it's the government's fault. (And Democrats believe in government so they are actively working to keep you down.) Their frame is always, entirely, the frame of self reliance and self interest. They preach it as a moral good no matter what the situation. This is a notion that has a very long history in American culture and it's one that appeals to a very basic aspect of human nature. It has become the dominant strain in political discourse over the last thirty years.
However, they know that Americans are not that simple minded about their own personal self interest. Even if they sign on to the philosophy of self interest it doesn't mean that they don't understand that they have much to gain with a generous redistributional government. (Hence the "lucky ducky" strategy.) Americans like certain things the government provides. So, the Republicans hire guys like Frank Luntz and spend millions of dollars polling and focus grouping to find out how to market this "you're on your own" philosophy to make it sound as if they will be guaranteed a better result if they do it the GOP way. They choose words and phrases that denigrate government, make Democrats appear to be corrupt and enslaved by "special" interests and make it sound as if people will be giving nothing up and gaining much by signing on to the Republican philosophy.
But, even with all that they have not been able to completely destroy the liberal consensus. Therefore, they are forced to do things like sell social security destruction on two tracks. They are simultaneously trying to "save" something that poeple obviously value while at the same time convincing people that they will benefit far more if they sign on to the privatization bandwagon. But we have recently found out that after all this time they can't use the word "privatization" because people aren't buying it. People know enough to know "privatization" means they might lose money.
This is very telling It says that while the Republicans have been able to move self interest to the front and center of political discourse, displacing the values of community and altruism as things people feel they ought to say when quizzed about such things. But they haven't managed to make people believe that government is their personal enemy or that it is in their self interest to reject all redistribution of wealth so that they might have more "opportunity." Self-interested people aren't ideologues. They'll take the best deal from wherever it comes.
Therefore, I would submit that our rhetorical frames should begin to speak to the fact that properly run government is a good deal. Social Security is a guaranteed check that is always on time and comes every single month no matter how long you live. That's a good deal.
And I think that we have to acknowledge that the altruistic, moral case for government is (temporarily, hopefully) on the decline and we need to argue in a way that accomodates that. On a separate track we must enlist the liberal clergy and others to begin to build the progressive values arguments back up, just as the Republicans continue to build their case for laissez-faire. But in the meantime, we need to realize that we are in an era of marketing to people's individual wants and desires and needs. This is how they view the world.
I don't think we need to be dishonest, but I fear that we are going to be bulldozed over and over again, even if we win the battle for social security, if we try to hang our hats on the moral case for good government. Someday, perhaps, we can get there. But today I think that the singular success of the Republican era is persuading people that selfishness is a positive good. Little Aynnie Rand must be popping a Dexie and lighting a cig with satisfaction down in the third circle right now.
digby 1/31/2005 03:20:00 PM
If It Ain't broke Don't Fix It
There Is No Crisis is putting together a fun and informative way to deal with the Preznit's State of the Union Destroy Social Security speech. Throw a house party and tune into a conference call afterward in which someone will interpret the soaring gibberish into English and educate your party about the nightmarish future Republicans intend for you to have in your old age.
(You can even incorporate my favorite, the Dubya Drinking game, points corresponding to how many times he says freedom, liberty, ownership and "personal accounts." But serve half shots or the party will be passed out before the conference call.)
"There Is No Crisis" is the response to Bush's repeated assertions that he is trying to "save social security." It's a bold way of framing it and it puts the onus on President Inarticulate to explain a complicated policy issue. (Even when they write a good speech, he's much more believable on the "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" kind of Hollywood dialog than making a complicated case for a particular policy.) This is good politics. The other side is on the defensive.
The key to arguing this issue is to recognize their various arguments and make them explain them. When you do that, they begin to see the outlines of a basically dishonest scheme. Here are a few ideas about handling this:
"The system is going broke"
When you're standing around the water cooler and somebody says that the system has to be fixed because it's going broke, ask them to explain why the date that the trust fund "runs out" keeps going up, from 2029 to 2042 and maybe higher even though the baby boomer retirement ages have been known for 50 years now. When they sputter, as they will, adopt the world weary derisive tone usually reserved for war hawks and law and order types and say, "Yeah, whatever. It sounds like a scam to me There's no crisis."
"Private accounts give a better return on investment"
Ask them if they agree that every portfolio needs some part of their retirement savings that isn't subject to being Enroned. And don't they think that having at least a minimal defined benefit plan is what allows people to take on more risk with their 401K's and IRA's and other investments? A prudent investor knows that everybody needs a very conservative portion of their portfolio to fall back on if they have a bad break. Isn't that really what social security is?
"The trust fund is a bunch of worthless IOU's"
Do they realize that those "worthless "IOU's" are government bonds? Those bonds are backed by the most reliable contract in the world "the full faith and credit of the Treasury of the United States of America." If government bonds are worthless then social security is the least of our problems. In fact, we should probably start burying gold in the back yard and laying in the canned goods.
"The baby boomer retirees are going to outnumber the workers and that's why the system is going broke"
Then how come Ronald Reagan signed the legislation back in 1983 that made all workers (and especially boomers in their top earning years) pay "extra" in order to pay for the baby boomer's retirements? What happened to that plan?
Then there is the big question that come back at you. It's not easy to explain, but you can do it if they'll let you finish a sentence.
"Why do they want to do this now?"
A variety of reasons, but the most important is that this is the first time since its inception that the Republicans have had the institutional power to dismantle social security. They have been against it since the day the legislation was signed and have been building this case for privatization since at least the fifties. Now that they are in power, the modern Republican party is conducting a radical economic (and foreign policy) experiment based upon their belief in laissez faire capitalism and world military domination but they have not been honest with the American people about what they are doing. We are by nature a cautious people when it comes to radical change and they know it. So they are creating "problems" and "crises" that don't exist (like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and social security going broke) in order to persuade people that that the old ways don't work anymore and that "modern" solutions are needed.
Privatizing Social Security is a very bold step back to the future. There was once a time when Americans closing in on the end of their lives either worked until they dropped dead or lived their final years in grinding poverty if they had not been able to save enough money during their earning years. There are an infinite number of reasons why this might be so. It could happen to anyone. Social Security was a recognition that everybody needs something to fall back on in life if things don't go well. Paying into it over the course of your earning years is a small price to pay for the peace of mind in knowing that even if your 401K or your IRA or your house doesn't appreciate the way you hope, there will at least be something that will keep the wolves at bay. There is only one entity on the face of this earth that can make a guarantee like that--- the government of the richest most powerful nation on earth. We can afford to guarantee that the elderly live their final years in a dignified, decent manner. We've managed to do that for the last seventy years and there's no reason that we shouldn't be able to continue. There is no crisis. Let's move on to dealing with real problems.
If that doesn't work, give them this article by George Will. Will makes the honest Republican argument:
The president says Social Security should be reformed because it is in "crisis." That is an exaggeration. Democrats say it should not be reformed because there is no crisis. That is a non sequitur. Social Security should be reformed not because there is a crisis but because there is an opportunity.
Voluntary personal accounts will allow competing fund managers, rather than a government monopoly on income transfers from workers to retirees, to allocate a large pool of money. This will enhance the economic dynamism conducive to an open society. Personal accounts will respect individuals' autonomy and competence and will narrow the wealth gap by facilitating the accumulation of wealth -- bequeathable wealth -- by people of modest incomes.
There you have it. If you want to trust the "competing fund managers" who backed Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers with every penny of your retirement instead of leaving a modest portion with the most reliable guarantor on earth, the United States of America, then you'll love social security privatization. It'll make your elderly years very exciting and unpredictable.
Click over to There is No Crisis and sign up for a house party. I swear it's the only way to get through what is going to be the most unctuous and shockingly dishonest SOTU that's ever been given. Peggy will crawl her way back up William Kristol's keister and proclaim it a home run. Steve Forbes will probably be anchoring the CNN coverage in a Chicken Little costume. You are going to need normal people around you.
Oh, and click over to this cool Move-On ad, soon to be seen in wavering districts throughout the country.
digby 1/31/2005 11:11:00 AM
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Look Who's Talking
This interesting article on the long term plan for SS privatization in today's LA Times contains a shocking, shocking revelation!
"It could be many years before the conditions are such that a radical reform of Social Security is possible," wrote Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis, Heritage Foundation analysts, in a 1983 article in the Cato Journal. "But then, as Lenin well knew, to be a successful revolutionary, one must also be patient and consistently plan for real reform."
...analysts Butler and Germanis argued in their prescient 1983 article — provocatively titled "Achieving a 'Leninist' Strategy" — that privatizing Social Security required a calculated, long-term campaign to transform the political environment.
Now that's odd. It seems like just a minute ago that I read a scathing take down of "the left" that seemed to indicate that such imagery wasn't exactly, well .... patriotic:
And this review of Steve Earle's concert in Knoxville -- in which he performed before a hammer and sickle -- observes:
The Soviet imagery might have seemed corny five years ago, but in the current right-leaning climate, a left-wing backlash is inevitable. Expect to see more of it.
If Kerry had won, would it be understandable for Republican artists to perform in front of swastikas? And how seriously should we take people who wish we had lost the Cold War, and who want us to lose this one?
Well, there aren't any Republican artists so that point is moot. There are, however, VMI cadets who think that dressing up in nazi gear and blackface is training for future leadership and anyone who doesn't like it should just STFU:
Numerous VMI supporters defended the students' right to enjoy themselves during a break from their rigorous training program and attacked what they perceive as political correctness run amok.
"You have no idea what we go through here at VMI, and if the cadets and rats choose to have fun on Halloween, you should not have anything to say about it," a VMI cadet wrote. "Just remember, we are the future leaders of America, and we will be the ones defending your rights."
I wonder which party that young man belongs to?
You would think that those on the right would find it a bit alarming that right wing analysts were openly apeing communist revolutionary tactics even before the cold war was "won," too, but apparently there's nothing wrong with a little sincere flattery.
When it comes to obscure left wing professors who nobody has ever heard of, though, the buck has come to a full stop at the door of us decaying immoral liberals who must be held accountable for every word he said.
And they are right. This kind of nutty talk shouldn't be allowed to pollute the discourse without somebody standing up and saying no. So I'll tell you what, fellas. I'll disavow this joker from Nowhere University when you guys disavow the vomitous spew with which your millionaire pundits and "entertainers" disgrace this nation's airwaves every single day to tens of millions of listeners, ok?
Here's a little sample of the fetid swill that passes for political discourse on the right in this country:
LIMBAUGH: We killed his sons. We took his country. We put him in jail. He is still calmer and more rational than Howard Dean after he lost Iowa. He's calmer and more rational than Gore after he lost his mind. He's calmer and more rational than George Soros is.
LIMBAUGH: I mean, if there is a party that's soulless, it's the Democratic Party. If there are people by definition who are soulless, it is liberals -- by definition. You know, souls come from God. You know? No. No. You can't go there.
LIMBAUGH: Women still make up an average of only 13 percent of police officers... They're never happy. And I don't mean women. I'm talking about the activists. Don't lose your cookies out there. This is according to the National Center for Women and Policing, which is a division of the Feminist Majority Foundation of American, which is the feminazis. This is exactly what I'm talking about. So what's the reaction to this? Well, here's my reaction, in the typical Rush fashion: If we've got four new female police chiefs out there, then I guess we can watch out for some naked pyramids among prisoners in these new jailhouses that these women ran, because we had a woman running the prison in Abu [Algore pronunciation] Grab. That's how you do it.
VESTER: You say you'd rather not talk to liberals at all?
COULTER: I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days. [FOX News Channel, DaySide with Linda Vester, 10/6]
"My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie-chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention."
SAVAGE: And we have all of the leaders -- we have Obergrupenführer Clinton; we have Grupenführer Carter; we have Brigadeführer Daschle. ... There are only a few rotten führers on the bottom of the corporals; they're the ones wearing the little funny green costumes down there. But they're all there. That's how I see them.
Instapundit: There was a time when the Left opposed fascism and supported democracy, when it wasn't a seething-yet-shrinking mass of self-hatred and idiocy. That day is long past, and the moral and intellectual decay of the Left is far gone.
This particular type of rhetoric using violent imagery, nazi and terrorist comparisons, revolting physical descriptions,and characterizations as irrational, soulless, fragrant, hirsute, rotten, far gone can only be described as eliminationist. Its tone is so derisive and so relentlessly contemptuous that it becomes difficult for people who listen to this stuff everyday to even think of liberals or "the left" or Democrats as even human much less fellow Americans.
There was a time when I thought that someone like Instapundit was a cut above this type of thing, but no more. It's no longer just right wing talk show hosts ostensibly "entertaining" the folks. It's law professors and Claremont fellows publicly accusing "the left" of being terrorist sympathizers.
Some people need to get out of the right wing echo chamber and breathe some fresh air. They have lost the capacity to see and hear what they and their allies are really saying. This is a very destructive genie they have let out of bottle.
Update: Now this is just funny. Instapundit quotes Ed Driscoll writing:
In the 1950s, Bill Buckley was able to create a new conservatism by casting out the John Birchers and their anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories. Now it's the left's turn to try to do much the same.
Uh huh. That's a nice story. It's true that William Buckley chastized the birchers for accusing Eisenhower of being a communist. But cast them out? Nah.
From the Columbia Encyclopedia:
"...the society was founded to fight subversive Communism within the United States. Its other objectives have included the abolition of the graduated income tax, the repeal of social security legislation, the impeachment of various high government officials, the end to busing for the purpose of school integration, the end to U.S. membership in the United Nations, and the nullification of the treaty that turned over the Panama Canal to Panama."
Now where have I heard that agenda before? Give me a minute....
Replace "communist" with "liberal" (when they even bother with the distinction) and there is very little difference between what you hear coming out of the mouths of modern conservatives and the John Birchers. As far as conspiracies go, there is nothing like the myth of the liberal media to keep those paranoid juices flowing. They weren't cast out, they were simply asked to be loyal Republicans.
digby 1/30/2005 07:02:00 PM
Who's Counting The Votes?
Following up on my post below, Matthews just reiterated the apeculation that Ahmad Chalabi is likely to be part of this new government. Pat Lang, the intelligence expert said that he hoped that Chalabi won't be given the Ministry of Interior because he would be in charge of the police. No shit.
Is it at all possible that Ahmad Chalabi is going to be "elected" under American occupation and be allowed to take an active role? It sure seems like a funny way to establish the legitimacy of this election.
I guess they can get away with absolutely anything. After all, they got away with Florida, they can certainly install every neocon's favorite Iraqi if they damn well please. Legitimacy is for losers.
digby 1/30/2005 04:53:00 PM
Let Freedom Ring: Second Verse Same As The First
James Wolcott writes:
Yesterday on one of the Fox financial shows, James Rogers, author of Investment Biker, commodities guru, and neighbor-down-the-block (an utterly irrelevant detail I thought I'd toss in to make this blog sound more "personal"), was asked by host Neil Cavuto whether the elections in Iraq would be successful. Rogers said, "They'll be successful because the media will say they're successful," adding impishly, "Fox News probably already has the results."
And I think they got them from CNN. I haven't seen this much gushing since Asheigh Banfield threw on a little black burka and hitched a camel ride to Kabul.
Clearly, the media loves these trumped up Iraq milestones. They sent Anderson and Campbell over to hang out in the Green Zone and get "the feel" for the place while they patch up their pancake blush and admire each other's groovy winter desert wear in the bar.
They all agree that there was an excellent turn-out. 72%! (But I hear that Warren Mitofsky may have screwed up the exit polling, so don't hold your breath. This number is subject to change.) It's bigger than most people predicted, only rivaled by the phenomenal 98% turn-out for Saddam in the last election thus proving that Iraqis have always been big on voting. You can't blame them. Abu Ghraib is murder this time of year.
I agree, of course, that democracy is the bestest thing in the whole wide world (except the Bible) and that we have a responsibility to spread it and layer it and smooth it and sprinkle coconut on it it wherever there are people who don't have it. Nobody argues with that. (Praise democracy. Praise freedom. Praise liberty. Praise God. Praise George W. Bush. Amen. nowletmego.)
The counting is sure to be transparent to all. That's how we do these things in Murikin democracy. Needless to say, no Iraqi will ever have cause to believe that the vote was rigged in favor of American interests. Why, I'm pretty sure that Lil' Judy Miller just told Chris Matthews that Ahmad Chalabis "list" looks to be doing very well. She's quite the reporter. Always has the big scoop. She knows which lists have done well already. Matthews posits that Chalabi ends up as oil minister.
But, whaterver. This is a great day for Americademocracylibertyandfreedom. As Judy just reminded us, the president is on a roll. "He" has just had three free elections --- Afghanistan, Palestine and now Iraq. She didn't mention the US.
digby 1/30/2005 02:47:00 PM
Friday, January 28, 2005
Oh Maggie, I Wish I'd Never Seen Your Face
Thanks again to Kathy G, here's some more from traditional morals maven, Maggie Gallagher:
(Via Lexis-Nexis) August 10, 1998, Monday
AN UNWED TEEN MOM'S DILEMMA
BY: MAGGIE GALLAGHER
SUPPOSE you're an intelligent 17-year-old single girl who has just had a baby. Suppose you're even smart enough to know that, as one such young unwed mom named Chasity told The New York Times, "I made a mistake ... I'm not recommending this." Now suppose your local school's chapter of the National Honor Society, worried about sending a message that an unwed teen parent is a good role model, turns you down for membership, despite your high G.P.A.
What do you do?
If you are Chasity Glass, or her friend Somer Chipman, two 17-year- old students at Grant County High School in Kentucky, you agree to become poster girls for a new national legal campaign by the ACLU to establish unwed motherhood as the right of minor children everywhere.
Not that I blame Somer and Chasity so much. They're teen-agers after all, and teens are notoriously obsessed with their own feelings and rights. That's one of the reasons that youngsters shouldn't be parents, especially outside of marriage. But what's the ACLU's excuse?
Gender equality, intones ACLU lawyer Sara Mandelbaum self-righteously, as if the natural first step to raising women's status is to confer on teen-age girls a right to have babies. There is no social attitude or law on the books that is as big an obstacle to career achievement for women as having babies outside of wedlock, especially before adulthood.
And, incidentally, research shows that becoming an unwed mom is an equally large obstacle to eventually building a successful marriage; not only is it harder to find a good mate, but having a child with a man who is not your husband makes divorce more likely. All the way around these two girls have taken a step that may injure their own and, more important, their babies' chances in life for years to come. I wish them luck.
Yeah, a mother fighting for the right to an honor that she already earned because screeching moralists like Maggie Gallagher are worried "the message" it sends is sure to harm their babies' chances in life for years to come. I'm just sure of it. it must be true. She's an expert.
Maggie waited until she was 21 before she got knocked up by her kid's father whom she didn't bother to marry. By her own standards she was too selfish to marry for the next ten years. But she always finds others to castigate for their immorality and selfishness, rarely copping to what she would call a decadent lifestyle if another woman lived it. Her story remains vague and unknown to most people who read her material. Her close friends, the right wing think tankers and pundits in Manhattan and DC don't see anything amiss, however. (Falafels and strip poker anyone?)
The timeline suggests, although I don't have proof, that she may have been in a delicate condition while she was at Yale. I wonder what kind of message Maggie would think it sends for a pregnant college student to be allowed to receive a diploma when she is unwed. But, we needn't worry about that. If Maggie (being the paragon of honesty that she is) were pregnant at the time of her graduation from college she undoubtedly would have stayed home from the ceremony because it would set such a bad example for others.
You have to give her credit, though. She became a hypocritical wingnut harpy lecturing others about their mistakes right out of the box. That's the way it's done girls. Get with the "do as I say, not as I do" party and make some big bucks. Even an "illegitimate" child and really bad haircut won't hold you back.
Here are some more of those anti-feminist traditional values that sell so well:
...amazingly, deep within the bowels Title IX regulations (mostly used
heretofore to encourage women's sports), the federal government does define unwed pregnancy as a young girl's gender rights.
The intentions of Title IX were no doubt good: encouraging pregnant teens to stay in school. But time has proved even a high school diploma does not magically eliminate the enormous hardship that out-of-wedlock childbearing imposes. The ACLU's misguided campaign will not advance women's equality; it will no doubt encourage at least a few more immature teens to think about motherhood in terms of their own desires rather than their child's needs.
Like a lying apple cheeked Yalie mom who forgot to get married for ten years while she created a "career" as a "marriage expert."
But perhaps they might take a cue from another single young woman from Chasity and Somer's high school, who had a child a few years back. She too had good grades and she too was denied entry into the National Honor Society. But unlike Somer and Chasity, Krissy Ford decided it was not worth making a federal case of it: "I had no hard feelings at all," Krissy Ford told the Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader last May. "It's something that's not worth dragging your school down. ... It's a mistake I made."
Krissy respects the decision the two younger unwed moms made, but recalls, "My focus was on my child."
If only the rest of us could be so mature.
Oh my yes. There is no doubt in my mind that the world would be a better place if Maggie had been mature enough to "focus" on her child instead of helping to create a multi-million dollar industry devoted to indoctrinating "the people" in backward bourgeois values (at which they themselves scoff) for political gain and financial profit.
In light of Maggie's love-child, I wonder how all of her fellow up-tighty righties explain the strange advice to fellow travellers (from February 1999) such as "If you are going on the moral attack, wash your own hands first," and "those of us who see clearly the connection between the privatization of morality(especially sexual morality) and the public squalor we must all live in have to be in the business not of rallying troops but of making conversions," in light of the fact that she stands accused of not only greed, avarice and mendacity in taking payola from the government, but she's also obviously someone who lived a secret life as an elitist libertine while making a living chastizing young girls for being as immoral as she is?
(Oh, what am I saying? They will resort to their usual sophistry and say that Gallagher never explicitly condemned unwed motherhood for dark haired women who graduated from Yale and besides keeping it a quasi secret is the right thing to do because she was trying to set an example. Next?)
Maggie Gallagher believes that unwed motherhood is the scourge of modern American life. In one of the self-serving screeds in which she failed to disclose that she was on the take from the Bush administration, she wrote:
But $300 million is a tiny fraction of what we spend to deal with the social problems created by high rates of illegitimacy and divorce. You know what really costs big bucks? Having one-third of our babies born outside of marriage. These children, through no fault of their own, are more likely to be poor,
welfare-dependent, to need special education, to get physically ill (Medicaid
dollars), to become substance abusers, experience mental illness, commit acts of
juvenile delinquency and become adult criminals, drop out of high school, be
held back a grade, and to go onto become young unwed mothers and fathers
themselves, perpetuating an expensive cycle of downward mobility.
Well, yes. Unless one is a high paid GOP shill who works as a "marriage expert" in no less than three of the bogus GOP propaganda front groups that call themselves "think tanks." Then you can fuck to your hearts content, get knocked up, stay unmarried for ten years while you pursue your elitist career as a "scholor" and "columnist" and still be able to hector the rest of the country about traditional morality.
Man, oh man, The right is really where the money is. I'm beginning to feel a little bit foolish for not taking advantage of it. If you can cast off all personal integrity and can bear to kiss the asses of people like James Dobson, they don't care what kind of a freak you are. What a great scam.
Update: Media Matters has all the data of the GOP front groups our gal Maggie has been sucking from for her entire "career" as a "marriage expert." (I was going to say "who do you have to blow to get some of that action" and then I realized...ohmydeargawd)
Correction: I misspelled Kathy G's name. It has been fixed in this post and the one below.
digby 1/28/2005 01:13:00 PM
Did I just hear Richard Perle on Nightline say that the biggest mistake we made in Iraq was not handing the country over to Ahmad Chalabi three years ago? Yes, and the biggest flaw in our national economy is that we haven't turned the Federal Reserve over to Ken Lay. Yes, and the biggest mistake I am likely to make in trying to understand this Festival of Fruitcakes is failing to have laid in enough mushrooms to get me through the State of the Union. To be fair, Perle tap-danced all around the name until Koppel finally brought it up, and then he said "Ahmad Chalabi" the way most people say, "trichinosis." Still, sweet storebought Jeebus.
What do you suppose it would take to get Pierce to write these pithy gems more often than once a week?
digby 1/28/2005 10:40:00 AM
Maggie Was A Bad Girl
Commenting on Eschaton yesterday, reader Kathy G let Maggie's cat out of the bag:
Gallagher just looooves to rant about "family values" and how important it is that "elites" set an example (presumably so the lower orders remain properly deferential).
By any definition, Gallagher herself must be considered a member of the elite class - she went to Yale, after all. And her explanation about why she never went public about taking taxpayer money to ho for Bush - that she "forgot" about the $20,000 - kind of speaks for itself. Man, I sure as hell wish *I* could "forget" about $20,000.
Which brings us to this: Gallagher is yet another member of the wingnut "do as I say, not as I do" family values crowd. It turns out that, once upon a time, Ms. Gallagher was - gasp! horrors! - an UNWED MOTHER.
Apparently, as a young and lusty college-age lass, Maggie enjoyed her fun a little too much, and got knocked up. (Undoubtedly, the dastardly perpetrator of this deed was one of them Ivy League libruls, who did it solely with the plan of crediting our virtuous heroine).
How do I know this? Gallagher has written about it - though only in the context of a pious wingnut column about the horrors of abortion.
Anyway, she had the kid but, to my knowledge, did NOT marry the father. She didn't meet and marry the present Mr. Gallagher (or whoever) until later.
I wish I had access to Lexis-Nexis right now, because I'm sure I could pin this story down if her old columns for the NY Post are up there. Hopefully Atrios or one of you other Eschatons can find it and broadcast it throughout the land. Maggie, you shameless hussy, you!
Of course, NOW Gallagher is unctuously, properly remorseful about her "sin." But that didn't prevent her from having her fun when she wanted it. It never does with these guys and gals. They want to be able to do anything they damn please, but then they turn around and with hell's own fury castigate anyone else who wants to do the same.
Especially if, you know, they're "not the right class, dear." Or are the wrong color.
Frankly, I'm shocked. How unlike a wingnut to be so hypocritical.
Now, I know all of you Maggie defenders out there will probably say this is just some kind of Desperate Housewives catfight. Mags would never mislead her readers this way. But, you would be wrong. Maggie herself has written about it, rarely to be sure, and mostly a long time ago, but it's not a complete secret. Just a little something she doesn't advertise.
Maggie has been telling everyone who will listen, ad nauseum, that she has been a "marriage expert" for twenty years. But for ten of those years, fully half of her career, she was an unwed mother. That's quite a CV.
Kathy Grier was kind enough to send along some links to a few of the rare Maggie writings in which she admits to her little moral boo-boo.
Here's the evidence. (I know it's early in the day, but you should pour yourself a stiff drink before you read it. You're going to need it. Wow.)
And here's an interview with the hedonistic San Francisco liberal mag, Salon, in which she says "I was an unwed mother for ten years."
Let's just say that there isn't a paper trail showing that quote amongst her voluminous writings for right wing publications. She certainly doesn't mention it when she's hectoring girls about sex out of wedlock or decrying the husbandless home.
One can understand how difficult it is to find a mate and all, but if you believe so strongly that children should not be raised without both parents, ten years seems like quite a long time to wait to find a father for your child. There are matchmaking services on the Right that could have found Maggie a nice Christian man from Ardmore,Oklahoma who needed a mother for his five children. Maggie believes that any father is better than no father (unless he's gay, of course) so the proper thing to have done would be for her to sacrifice her "career" as a "marriage expert" and you know, actually get married to any man who would have her in order to provide a proper home for her son. Otherwise she's just another liberal feminazi putting her own need to live where she wanted and put her education to work and find a man she loved before the needs of her child. What will we tell the children?
This is an epidemic on the right. Gallagher reminds me of Susan Carpenter McMillan anti-abortion zealot (and Paula Jones stylist) who was revealed to have had two abortions to which she had never admitted.
I'm beginning to feel sorry for the poor sincere red state schmucks who believe in all this traditional values stuff. A bunch of slick, elitist, wingnut hucksters are taking them to the cleaners.
Calling Hollywood. Time for a remake of "Elmer Gantry."
digby 1/28/2005 09:23:00 AM
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Spongebob Goes To Church
Via Amy at Political Animal, I see that it is possible for church leaders to have a sense of humor. This is funny.
You have to give it to the UCC. They are taking action. I like 'em.
digby 1/27/2005 09:01:00 PM
High Level Diplomacy
I'm awfully glad that taxpayers are paying for the highest caliber of diplomats --- intelligent, restrained, sophisticated. And with a wit that is just breathtaking. People who write things like this:
A friend of The Diplomad has provided us this letter which he "swears it's real." Of course, he also thought PanAm was a good investment . . . but, we can dream, eh?
Dear Concerned Citizen:
Thank you for your recent letter roundly criticizing our treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Our administration takes these matters seriously, and your opinion was heard loud and clear in Washington.You'll be pleased to learn that thanks to concerned citizens like you, we are creating a new division of the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called the "Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers" program, or LARK for short. In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to place one terrorist under your personal care.
Although Ahmed is sociopathic and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him overcome these character flaws.
Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences. He will bite you, given the chance. We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling. Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. We do not suggest that you ask him to demonstrate these skills at your next yoga group He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.
Ahmed will not wish to interact with your wife or daughters (except sexually) since he views females as a subhuman form of property. This is a particularly sensitive subject for him, and he has been known to show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the new dress code that Ahmed will recommend as more appropriate attire. I'm sure the women in your household will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the bhurka - over time. Just remind them that it is all part of "respecting his culture and his religious beliefs" - wasn't that how you put it?
Thanks again for your letter. We truly appreciate it when folks like you, who know so much, keep us informed of the proper way to do our job.
You take good care of Ahmed - and remember...we'll be watching. Good luck!
How many of you vote that the first LARK letter go to Teddy Kennedy followed by one to Michael Moore? Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, has certainly earned himself the right to participate in LARK, too.
Man is that some hilarious material, or what? I'm proud to pay his salary, I can tell you that. Especially in light of this:
Female interrogators tried to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay by sexual touching, wearing a miniskirt and thong underwear and in one case smearing a Saudi man's face with fake menstrual blood, according to an insider's written account.
In November, in response to an AP request, the military described an April 2003 incident in which a female interrogator took off her uniform top, exposed her brown T-shirt, ran her fingers through a detainee's hair and sat on his lap. That session was immediately ended by a supervisor and that interrogator received a written reprimand and additional training, the military said.
In another incident, the military reported that in early 2003 a different female interrogator "wiped dye from red magic marker on detainees' shirt after detainee spit (cq) on her," telling the detainee it was blood. She was verbally reprimanded, the military said.
Sexual tactics used by female interrogators have been criticized by the FBI (news - web sites), which complained in a letter obtained by AP last month that U.S. defense officials hadn't acted on complaints by FBI observers of "highly aggressive" interrogation techniques, including one in which a female interrogator grabbed a detainee's genitals.
Yeah, it's some kind of a wonderful free society when female interrogators are used as dominatrix whores to humiliate a bunch of unlucky putzes who were sold for 5 grand by an Afghan warlord who's still laughing his ass off at how easy it was to get rid of his hated brother-in-law.
I'm awfully impressed with all these kinky sexual interrogation techniques they are using against Muslim males. Clearly, this stuff wasn't thought up by a single group of fucked up prison guards from West Virginia. In fact, we know where it came from --- the fascinatingly stupid neocon bible called "The Arab Mind", a cartoon anthropological guidebook that says things like "the Arab view [is] that masturbation is far more shameful than visiting prostitutes".
The frightening thing is that presumably smart people actually believed that hard core terrorists would be so upset by masturbation and sexual humiliation that they'd crack like little bitty babies. The men and women in charge of our security are obviously puerile adolescents who think that "arabs" are so fundamentally different from us that they are a lesser species.
I think we might actually lose this thing. Thong panties and menstrual blood interrogation is so disturbingly on the wrong track that I think more Americans are going to die. These people are just too stupid, racist and deluded to understand what it's going to take to win.
digby 1/27/2005 07:43:00 PM
For what it's worth (which is nothing) I endorsed Dean for DNC chair many months ago. I felt that it was very important that Dean's followers join the Democratic party with their full hearts because I thought the party needed them. I have long believed that the constant harping about hating the DNC and Democratic politicians by those of us on the left is doing almost as much harm to the party as what the Republicans have done. Indeed, it seems to me that those two forces have worked together in some ways to make it very difficult for some swing voters to vote for us. I believed that Dean as DNC chair might give people a reason to strongly defend the party for a change.
I have to say, however, that I'd be just as happy with Simon Rosenberg. His Plan sounds right on the money to me. If he does not become the chair, I certainly hope that he will remain influential in the party. These ideas are very thoughtful, forward looking and innovative. Whoever wins, I hope that this kind of thinking will lead the way.
digby 1/27/2005 06:28:00 PM
I missed this yesterday, but apparently the little mice in The Corner believe that lefties should be as dumb as the wingnuts who are embarrassing themselves with nonsensical cries of "liberal bias" because "The Passion" didn't get nominated for Best Picture. The fact is that people who follow politics and popular culture (and don't live in a right wing prayer group telephone tree) know how these things work and don't pitch fits when the world works in thoroughly predictable ways.
For instance, people who read know that Michael Moore declined to submit "F9/11" for the "Best Documentary" category (in which he was the odds on favorite to win another Oscar) back in September because he was hoping to get a TV airing prior to the presidential election. The rules specify that you can't air a documentary within nine months of it's theatrical release to contend for a Best Documentary Oscar. Therefore, the only category for which his film could qualify was Best Picture, an extreme long shot.
The Academy can vote en masse for documentaries and it's highly unlikely that the highest grossing documentary of all time would have been overlooked in that category. It is highly likely that he would have won that award. Therefore, it was actually quite a sacrifice on Moore's part. Winning Oscars is no small thing and any filmmaker would love to have a couple of them on his mantle. He gave up what he knew was his best shot at winning --- and getting a chance to make a big speech that would be heard around the world --- in order to try to get his film seen by more people before the election.
He certainly has my gratitude for doing that, and for all he did during the campaign. I believe that he and many other representatives of popular culture helped our turn out. And for those who think we should distance ourselves from Hollywood, I can only laugh. Popular culture is our single most potent weapon in the post modern political world in which we live. It continues to prove day in and day out that the liberal consensus still exists in this country and that the way people actually live (as opposed to how they think they are supposed to say they live) is tolerant, progressive and as far from the cramped, hypocritical Republican worldview as can be.
But, we've barely scratched the surface of how to use it for partisan purposes. Any thoughts that we should leave Democratic politics completely in the hands of dry, boring wonks and political junkies is about the most obvious recipe for ongoing disaster I can see. In a world of millions of competing voices, we'd better find a better more hueristic way of translating the liberal consensus into political action or before we know it, the other side will have completely cowed the public into believed that up is down and wrong is right.
The other side has created its own blatantly partisan politico-entertainment sector with talk radio and FOX News. But they are a bunch of angry, ugly wankers. We can do much better than that if we put our minds to it. In fact, we must.
Do the Democrats have guys like these working for them? Do they think in these terms?
Mr. Schriefer said he and a team of White House big shots transformed Madison Square Garden into a giant TV studio, "stealing" elements from network TV newsmagazines, awards shows, David Letterman and Saturday Night Live. Mr. Bush's intimate podium-in-the-round was designed by Joe Stewart, who has created set pieces for magician David Copperfield and Comedy Central's The Man Show. The giant movie screen used for broadcasting video shorts and Reagan requiems was ripped directly from the Academy Awards. "We realized the big screen actually became a character in the whole thing," said Mr. Schriefer.
"We live in a time when there's a real cross-pollination between politics and pop culture," he said. "As Republicans, we're often thought of as behind the curve in popular culture, and we don't have to be, and we can certainly compete on that level just as well as the Democrats can."
"If you think about what images you have in your head from the Kennedy years, it's really not video -- except one awful piece of video," he continued. "It's stills. They deliberately modeled the West Wing intro after that; they've modeled it after these famous photos of Kennedy, standing by the window and stuff like that. They clearly studied this. These are the images you have of the Presidency. So in that sense, if you're trying to elicit an emotion more than tell a linear narrative, stills can work -- with great words."
The movie also used "rotoscoping," the technique used in the Robert Evans documentary The Kid Stays in the Picture, that allows moving 3-D elements to be added to still photos. For instance, in the images from Yankee Stadium, they made the flash bulbs flash. They also used natural sound, "like a radio play," said Mr. Stevens, "like an NPR story, so you'd hear these live sounds. You hear their breath and their footsteps. We wanted to get the other voices of the people in there -- the firefighter. Those are obviously their real voices."
Sure, Spielberg comes in and makes a nice film for Kerry, but he isn't devoting his entire life to putting on the Democratic Show like these guys are. He doesn't create a seamless road show from lighting to backdrop to sound to music that follows the campaign everywhere it goes that fellows like Stuart Stevens do. We are all aware of how they compose the shot to make Bush look more presidential and how they put the words they want people to absorb in a backdrop, but did anyone ever notice how they compress the sound at a Bush rally to sound as if the roar of approval builds to a frenzy? They are into all these details of presentation that we just seem to overlook. Our campaigns look old fashioned and ragged by comparison. Our TV pundits are tired and haplessly unprepared. We have no sense of drama as a party, as a movement. (This was, in my opinion, one of Clinton's great gifts. For better or for worse, he was interesting.)
I'm hearing a little rumbling though that sounds promising and its coming from our own little corner of the political world. When an establishment expert like Stuart Rothenberg feels that it's worth making derisive comments about you by calling you "clueless" and having an "exaggerated sense of your own importance," you know that an upstart revolution is taking place.
Somebody isn't being boring and that's an excellent step in the right direction. Right now the left blogosphere is a nascent rag tag grassroots reform story that shows incredible energy and some long needed idealism. If Dean (or Rosenberg for that matter) becomes the chairman of the DNC, that's the image this party is most likely to have going forward. I'd love to see a Democratic Stuart Stevens start working with this right now to market that energy and idealism to the public. We're using media in a new way that's fresh and exciting and it's making the old guard nervous. Now that's something we can work with. There's a new revolutionary narrative emerging and if the Democrats are smart enough to see it, they'll begin to build a popular culture presence right now to go with the substance of the reformation of the party. That's how smart politics are played these days; you work on several different levels --- it's all part of the same thing.
And while Michael Moore is a flame throwing polemicist who serves a very particular function in this whole thing, he's probably got some very good contacts in Hollywood who'd be more than interested in helping with this project. I would hope that any part of the Democratic establishment, new or old, that gets approached by people who know something about this stuff will listen. It's one of the keys to our future.
Here's another interesting article about how the two parties handle advertising. Very illuminating.
Update: To those who have written to me complaining that I have mischaracterized Michael Moore's withholding his admission to the Academy Awards, here are the rules for submission to the Best Documentary Awards.
And as for your complaints that "F911" would not qualify as a documentary because it is not factual, bite me.
digby 1/27/2005 03:01:00 PM
With Friends Like These
Nathan Newman and Atrios point to today's NY Times analysis of Chile's privatization scheme. It's a very interesting article and one that will come as a huge surprise to anyone who was listening to NPR's "The World" with Lisa Mullins on Monday afternoon and heard the glowing report on Chile's program which then segued into an interview with an analyst/scholor Matt Moore from the "non-partisan" National Center For Policy Analysis who proceeded to say that privatization was working wonderfully well in the countries where it's been tried. They provide some excellent lessons to be learned about how to properly privatize our system.
I, like most Americans, am not an expert on social security privatization schemes around the world and were it not for the fact that this is a hot topic on blogs and liberal news sites, I would not know that the benign sounding National Center For Policy Analysis was a group devoted to private sector solutions to everything under the sun. I urge you to check out it's web site, particularly the social security page,linked above. This think tank's spiel is one of the most dishonest I've yet come across in the Right Wing Noise Machine. It goes out of its way to advertise itself as being devoted to debating both sides of the issue and then it proceeds to egregiously propagandize for Republican policies.
Apparently, the leftist socialist NPR (and BBC) didn't bother to investigate what their neutral non-partisan guest has ever written, because he was presented as a neutral policy analyst and his views went completely unchallenged. (He does sound like such a nice boy.)
Here's the link to the program (scroll down to the "Other Models Interview 5:00").
This is the type of thing that's going to kill us if we don't deal with it. This guy sounded completely reasonable. The lead in story about Chile's wonderful privatization scheme sounded completely reasonable. But, it was completely bullshit and it was on NPR, not Limbaugh or Fox. We should scream bloody murder that they would use this obviously agenda driven think tank for "non-partisan" analysis.
We are all agog at the Maggie Gallagher and Armstrong Williams payola scandals. And it is outrageous (but not surprising) that the Republicans have become so greedy that they are dipping into taxpayer funds to propagandize. It's not like they don't have enough millionaire GOP money floating around for just that purpose.
But the idea that these pundits' failure to disclose is the real problem is to swat ineffectually at flies. The real problem is that guys like this Matt Moore routinely fail to disclose that they are working for a Republican Policy Shop and that the so called liberal media is either too stupid or too lazy or too sympathtic to disclose it themselves. All you have to do is google the name of the think tank and you come up with this from the People For The American Way, which should at least make a journalist sit up and do some investigating if nothing else:
National Center for Policy Analysis
12655 North Central Expressway, Suite 720
Dallas, TX 75243-1739
President/Executive Director: John C. Goodman
Finances: $5,237,217 (total expenditures in 2001)
Affiliations: NCPA is a member of the State Policy Network, a network of national and local right-wing think tanks, and of townhall.com, a right-wing internet portal created by the Heritage Foundation.
Publications: NCPA sponsors two of its own syndicated columnists: Pete du Pont (Scripps Howard) and Bruce Bartlett (Creators Syndicate). Bartlett's column appears under contract twice a week in the Washington Times and in the Detroit News.
NCPA’s Principal Issues:
# A right wing think tank with programs devoted to privatization in the following issue areas: taxes, Social Security and Medicare, health care, criminal justice, environment, education, and welfare.
# NCPA describes its close working relationship with Congress, saying it “has managed to have more than a dozen studies released by members of Congress – a rare event for a think tank – and frequently members of Congress appear at the NCPA's Capitol Hill briefings for congressional aides.”
# Right-wing foundations funding includes: Bradley, Scaife, Koch, Olin, Earhart, Castle Rock, and JM Foundations
# In the early 90s, NCPA created the Center for Tax Studies. NCPA’s website describes the inspiration for the Center: “Very few think tank studies are released by members of Congress.”
Does that sound non-partisan to anyone? Are these "studies" considered to be non-partisan?
This is happening all over television and radio. Those of us who are sophisticated in these matters know how to peg guys like this Moore based upon his pitch. But if you are average Joe Democrat last Monday afternoon listening on NPR, your trusted source of non-right wing news, you would have no way of knowing that this guy was completely in the tank.
This is our problem folks. This crap is seeping out of the right wing echo chamber and it's infecting people who don't believe in their philosophy. That's the percentage we are losing in these close elections.
I suppose the miracle is that we are able to keep 49% in this environment. It's a testimony to the tenacity and intelligence of busy American liberals that they continue to be able to sort through this mess. But, we have got to start cleaning it up. This bought and paid for right wing media and their dishonest shills are the single most dangerous thing we face going forward.
digby 1/27/2005 10:39:00 AM
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Let Sleeping Dogs Lie
Just in case there's anyone out there who holds with the ridiculous notion that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was anything other than an incoherent, self-serving (drunken) twit in his later years as the Lion of The Senate, read this.
He gave more aid and comfort to the enemy over the years than Joementum could ever dream of giving. It's not surprising that they would exhume him now to serve his usual role as facilitator of GOP criminal ravishment. It's what he specialized in.
digby 1/26/2005 08:22:00 PM
James Wolcott points out that Chatty Kathy Lopez at The Corner thought Junior was in an especially good mood today. I agree. He seemed downright jovial. Wolcott also notes that this joviality was just a tad inappropriate since it was only hours since we'd heard that 31 American soldiers had been killed in a helicopter crash. (But then, Bush has always had a macabre bent. After all, he thought mocking Karla Faye Tucker was a real laugh riot.)
Wolcott notices something about Bush that I haven't seen anyone else mention and it's something that drives me completely nuts.
When Bush did address the soldiers' deaths, he said that we "weep and mourn" when Americans die, but as he was saying it his hand was flatly smacking downwards for emphasis, as if he were pounding the table during the business meeting, refusing to pay a lot for a muffler. The steady beat of his hand was at odds with the sentiments he was expressing--he didn't look or sound the least bit mournful or sombre.
Somebody, somewhere (Karen?) told Junior that he would sound authoritative if he said...each...word...in....a...sentence...with...equal...emphasis. Unfortunately, he does it all the time and it makes him look like a halfwit with a wierd anger management problem. Actually, now that I think about it, it's probably the way he talks naturally.
And listen, the story today is going to be very discouraging to the American people. I understand that. We value life. And we weep and mourn when soldiers lose their life. And -- but it is the long-term objective that is vital, and that is to spread freedom. Otherwise, the Middle East will be -- will continue to be a cauldron of resentment and hate, a recruiting ground for those who have this vision of the world that is the exact opposite of ours.
Hand slapping on podium for emphasis, words clipped and distinct, pissed demeanor, impatient tone. "Have you got that you little bastards? Now go clean your rooms."
He's the Dad who is always mad. So when the press brought up the fact that today had the highest single daily death toll in Iraq thus far, he was irritated. He told America to stop that crying or he'd give them something to cry about, damn it.
He was in a good mood all right. If he could have kicked the dog he would have been walking on air.
digby 1/26/2005 07:29:00 PM
Ezra's new (Type)Pad
It appears that Ezra Klein of Pandagon has taken up residence at a new address. He and Jesse were probably getting a little old for roommates anyway. And from what I can tell, Jesse's doing just fine carrying on on his own. Man, that youthful energy is just amazing.
When I look at these guys' output I wonder what in the hell I did with my time when I was their age? Well, I was awfully busy. It was the 70's sexual revolution and all that.
(Who'm I kidding? But weed was cheap...)
In my humble opinion, Ezra's one of the best bloggers around. He's a very smart writer, but what I really like about him is that he's a moderate with a heart. You don't find those around Ye Olde Blogopheyre too often. There are plenty of moderates, of course, but they tend to be technocrats and wonks. Ezra's politics combine centrist instincts with emotional exhiliration and idealism. I find that very intriguing. Check it out.
digby 1/26/2005 03:18:00 PM
Matthew Yglesias understands how the game needs to be played. I hope that the Democrats in Washington are listening because this is very important. Regarding this clumsy "reframing" that Luntz and his fellow propagandists are doing with "personal accounts" it should be clear by now to all Democrats that relying on the media to "see though" these gambits if only we present them with the facts is a fools game. This is postmodern media we're dealing with here. We must present an alternate reality, which they can then use as our version of the truth. Only then they can be manipulated into using the correct frame-up:
This calls, basically, for someone at the DNC (or DSCC or AFL-CIO or MoveOn or wherever) to hire someone to do some focus groups and come up with a serviceable term that focus groups even worse than private accounts. Then you send around a memo getting all Democrats to start calling them "X accounts" while the White House calls them "personal accounts." Then "private accounts" will look like a decent compromise and it may well get back in the stories.
It's insane, yes, that the very term invented by proponents of private accounts is now considered to be off-limits. But that's the game. If you want to work the refs, you've got to work the refs. "Forced savings accounts" strikes me intuitively as something that focus groups won't like, but actual research should be done.
I'm sorry it has to be this way. But I'm even sorrier that we still don't seem to get that we have to modernize our strategy in this fundamental way.
It doesn't really matter if the The New York Times understands that the Republicans are changing their marketing slogans. I'm sure it's very edifying to know that some smart people in the press are not impervious to
reason at least some of the time. What really matters, however, is that they use the marketing slogans we want them use.
Once again, the Republicans left us a very useful blueprint for how to derail a major initiative like this. The Clinton Health Care Plan. Their frame was "government run health care", "they want to choose your doctor" "they'll make going to the doctor like going to the DMV or the post office." The took their favorite boogeyman and used it to completely distort the plan in a simple, creepy way.
Is there any reason that we shouldn't use similar scare tactics about taking your guaranteed retirement money and letting Wall Street to play with it? Nope. And once we do that, the press will be obliged by its he said/she said "objectivity" to not only choose the term "private accounts" to split the difference between what the two parties want, they will also be obliged to report our demagoguery along side Bush's demagoguery. Let the best scare tactic win.
Reason, logic and objectivity are required for good governance. In the current environment they are antithetical to good politics. They take up too much time. They lack the sensation and visceral knee jerk identification that's needed to capture the public's attention. We need to be able to explain our positions but we have to be operating on other more subjective levels if we expect to win these things.
Social Security seems to be going our way but I am far from sanguine that we've got it in the bag. Rove is very good at pushing past people's instincts and creating a new reality. He does it by manipulating the media with relentless pressure and exerting a masterful command over the presentation. He succeeds by wearing down both the media and his opponents and tying them up in knots with a cacophany of noise while competing and illogical assumptions are set forth with visual clarity. He knows his optics.
Yesterday he composed a ridiculous but compelling tableau in which Bush was seen showing his compasionate conservatism by illustrating that private accounts would benefit African Americans because they have shorter life spans. Now, anybody with a brain knows that this life span data is based upon the fact that blacks have higher infant mortality and young deaths due to violent causes. In fact, African Americans who reach 65 can be expected to live very close to the same life span as whites. But, who's going to listen to that except a bunch of political junkies who are already convinced? All that mattered was that there was a big picture in the Times this morning showing Bush sitting at a table with a group of black leaders talking about social security. He's reaching out to "the other side."
But it's not blacks he's trying to reach. It's whites who like the idea that privatization is good for poor people but haven't quite found a good argument that supports it. This pitch allows Bush supporters to hoist liberals with their own petard by saying they are racists who want to keep blacks from getting their fair share. This kind of sophisticated obfuscation comes as second nature to Republicans these days. We are seeing it in both the Gonzales and Rice debates on Capital Hill right now.
Dave Johnson wrote a fascinating must read piece today called "How Republicans Win" that addresses some of this:
The Republicans win because the modern Right has developed around the core idea of persuading people to support their ideology, which then leads to support for their issues and candidates. In other words: marketing. The Right developed this persuasion capability in reaction to the dominance of the existing "liberal establishment." Because of this, most of their organizations are designed as advocacy and communications organizations, with the mission of reaching the general public and explaining what right-wing ideas are and why they are better for people. Today's Progressives, on the other hand, think there already is a public consensus supporting their ideals and values, so they have not developed a culture that is oriented around persuading people, and their organizations are not designed at their core to persuade the public to support them.
For example, everyone used to think that it is moral to help the poor or protect the environment, so there are organizations that are designed to do that. Then along comes the right, funding organizations designed to convince people it is wrong to do these things. The result today is that on one side you have organizations trying to help the poor, protect the environment, etc. On the other you have organizations telling people what those organizations are doing is wrong. But now you have no one explaining to people that it is GOOD to help the poor and protect the environment so over time support for helping the poor obviously will erode and eventually the organizations that help the poor will be in trouble and have little public support.
I agree that this is the process and the end result, but I would argue that the right has done this not by persuading people to their ideology but by persuading them that Republican ideology is the one they already have.
They tell people that they are helping the poor more by bleeding government programs. (Remember, faith based programs arebetter at helping those in need because they offer the spiritual dimension.) They call their anti-environmental programs "healthy skies" and they refuse to do more than literally phone in bromides about a "culture of life" to their anti-choice base. This was a lesson they learned during the Gingrich years when they precipitously lost favor when they were honest about their agenda. With Bush, they learned the lesson that they needed to couch their ideas in liberal rhetoric in order to win. I believe this is born out by the fact that the polls show not only that Republican voters have a completely different set of priorities than the president for whom they voted, but they actually believe that the president holds their views even though he clearly doesn't.
The most recent PIPA poll confirms this:
Bush supporters also have numerous misperceptions about Bush's international policy positions. Majorities incorrectly assume that Bush supports multilateral approaches to various international issues--the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the treaty banning land mines (72%)--and for addressing the problem of global warming: 51% incorrectly assume he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty. After he denounced the International Criminal Court in the debates, the perception that he favored it dropped from 66%, but still 53% continue to believe that he favors it. An overwhelming 74% incorrectly assumes that he favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. In all these cases, majorities of Bush supporters favor the positions they impute to Bush. Kerry supporters are much more accurate in their perceptions of his positions on these issues.
That takes nothing away from Johnson's larger point about the Republican success at marketing. In fact, it confirms it. The Republicans are so good at this that they've been able to convince large numbers of people that they are something they're not, even in the face of absolute facts that refute it.
This is a masterful use of marketing and it's one that we need to recognise and begin to use ourselves. The good news is that the liberal consensus remains intact (if somewhat tattered) and if we are smart enough to expose the other side for the hucksters they are and reaffirm our committment to the values we and most of the country hold dear it shouldn't be too hard a sell.
We'll have to get past the media, however, and takes us back to Yglesias' point. We won't get there by refusing to play the game. We have to get better at manipulating the press and that means understanding the pressure they are under from the right and giving them something to use as a counterpoint so they can say they are "objective."
Personal Accounts vs Mandatory Gambling = privatization.
digby 1/26/2005 11:45:00 AM
Hello, Hello, I'm At A Place Called Vertigo
Thanks to all who wrote in concerned about my 10 day hiatus, but all is well. A slight glitch in the real life, nothing terribly serious, just time consuming. I'll be back in force just as soon as I catch up with the blogdrama of the day.
Until then, can we all agree that Commander Codpiece's Sermon on The Steps was just a teensy weensy bit silly? I occurs to me that the neocons are a lethal combination of the worst traits of both sides of the political spectrum --- starry-eyed kumbaya idealists who think the best way to make the world see things their way is by kicking the shit out of it. It figures. The original neocons were a bunch of embarrassed ex-communists who eventually left the Democratic party because the party refused to start WWIII so they could prove their manhood. Now, in their dotage, they are getting their wish. They shoudda had a Viagra.
digby 1/26/2005 10:43:00 AM
Monday, January 17, 2005
I'm given to understand that Junior wears these silly costumes as a courtesy because they are the uniforms of individual military units and they inscribe them with "Commander In Chief" and the presidential seal and all kinds of filligreed decorations over which he has absolutely no control (being only the commander in chief and all.) It's kind of like that "Mission Accomplished" sign. The troops just get overzealous and embarrass the president over and over again with their devotion.
So, does the flight crew of Air Force One also have a special uniform that somebody in the crew (maybe the flight attendant?) designed especially for the president?
Or is it possible that Karen Hughes sewed this one up her very own self? I'd be curious to know.
digby 1/17/2005 01:41:00 PM
The Heart Of The Democratic Party
I posted this speech once before but I think it's worth a rerun. In the summer of 1998 Bill Clinton was slowly being assassinated by the death of a thousand cuts. The press was as bloodthirsty as I've ever seen it. It's hard to remember now, but the feeding frenzy was overwhelming. I can still see the looks on their faces as night after night the media held their witchburning tribunal, cackling madly as they picked over the "evidence" with prurient delight. It was a very sick time.
On the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have A Dream Speech" Bill Clinton gave the following unprepared speech. It was the most heartfelt speech I ever heard him give.
August 28, 1998
The summer of 1963 was a very eventful one for me: the summer I turned 17.
What most people know about it now is the famous picture of me shaking hands with President Kennedy in July. It was a great moment. But I think the moment we commemorate today, a moment I experienced all alone, had a more profound impact on my life.
Most of us who are old enough remember exactly where we were on Aug. 28, 1963. I was in my living room in Hot Springs, Ark.
I remember the chair I was sitting in. I remember exactly where it was in the room. I remember exactly the position of the chair when I sat and watched on national television the great March on Washington unfold.
I remember weeping uncontrollably during Martin Luther King's speech. And I remember thinking, when it was over, my country would never be the same and neither would I.
There are people all across this country who made a more intense commitment to the idea of racial equality and justice that day than they had ever made before. And so in very personal ways, all of us became better and bigger because of the work of those who brought that great day about. There are millions of people who John Lewis will never meet who are better and bigger because of what that day meant.
And the words continue to echo down to the present day, spoken to us today by children who were not even alive then. And, God willing, their grandchildren will also be inspired and moved and become better and bigger because of what happened on that increasingly distant summer day.
What I'd like to ask you to think about a little today, and to share with you -- and I'll try to do it without taking my spectacles out, but I don't write very well and I don't read too well as I get older -- is what I think this means for us today. I was trying to think about what John and Dr. King and others did and how they did it, and how it informs what I do and how I think about other things today.
And I want to ask, you all need to think about three things . . . .
No. 1, Dr. King used to speak about how we were all bound together in a web of mutuality, which was an elegant way of saying, whether we like it or not, we're all in this life together. We are interdependent. Well, what does that mean? Well, let me give you a specific example: We had some good news today. Incomes in America went up 5 percent last year. That's a big bump in a year. We have got the best economy in a generation. That's the good news.
But we are mutually interdependent with people far beyond our borders. Yesterday, there was some more news that was troubling out of Russia, some rumor, some fact about the decline in the economy. Our stock market dropped over 350 points. And in Latin America, our most fast-growing market for American exports, all the markets went down even though, as far as we know, most of those countries are doing everything right. Why? Because we're in a tighter and tighter and tighter web of mutuality.
Asia has these economic troubles. So even though we have got the best economy in a generation, our farm exports to Asia are down 30 percent from last year. And we have states in this country where farmers, the hardest-working people in this country, can't make their mortgage payments because of things that happened half a world away they didn't have any direct influence on at all. This world is being bound together more closely.
So what is the lesson from that? Well, I should go to Russia because, as John said, anybody can come see you when you're doing well. I should go there.
And we should tell them that if they'll be strong and do the disciplined, hard things they have to do to reform their country, their economy, and get through this dark night, that we'll stick with them. . . .
The second thing.
Even if you're not a pacifist, whenever possible, peace and nonviolence is always the right thing to do.
I remember so vividly in 1994 . . .I was trying to pass this crime bill, and all of the opposition to the crime bill that was in the newspapers, all the intense opposition was coming from the N.R.A. and the others that did not want us to ban assault weapons, didn't believe that we ought to have more community policemen walking the streets, and conservatives who thought we should just punish people more and not spend more money trying to keep kids out of trouble in the first place. And it was a huge fight.
And so they came to see me, and he said, "Well, John Lewis is not going to vote for this bill." And I said, "Why?" and they said, "Because it increases the number of crimes subject to the Federal death penalty and he's not for it. And he's not in bed with all those other people, he thinks they're wrong, but he can't vote for it." And I said, "Well, let him alone. There's no point in calling him" because he's lived a lifetime dedicated to an idea and while I may not be a pacifist, whenever possible, it's always the right thing to do to try to be peaceable and nonviolent.
What does that mean for today? Well, there's a lot of good news. It's like the economy: the crime rate's at a 25-year low, juvenile crime's finally coming down. . . .
Half a world away, terrorists trying to hurt Americans blow up two embassies in Africa, and they killed some of our people, some of our best people -- of, I might add, very many different racial and ethnic backgrounds, American citizens, including a distinguished career African-American diplomat and his son -- but they also killed almost 300 Africans and wounded 5,000 others.
We see their pictures in the morning paper, two of them who did that. We were bringing them home. And they look like active, confident young people. What happened inside them that made them feel so much hatred toward us that they could justify not only an act of violence against innocent diplomats and other public servants, but the collateral consequences to Africans whom they would never know? They had children, too.
So it is always best to remember that we have to try to work for peace in the Middle East, for peace in Northern Ireland, for an end to terrorism, for protections against biological and chemical weapons being used in the first place.
The night before we took action against the terrorist operations in Afghanistan and Sudan, I was here on this island up till 2:30 in the morning trying to make absolutely sure that at that chemical plant there was no night shift. I believed I had to take the action I did, but I didn't want some person who was a nobody to me, but who may have a family to feed and a life to live, and probably had no earthly idea what else was going on there, to die needlessly. I learned that, and it's another reason we ought to pay our debt to the United Nations, because if we can work together, together we can find more peaceful solutions. Now I didn't learn that when I became President; I learned it from John Lewis and the civil rights movement a long time ago.
And the last thing I learned from them on which all these other things depend, without which we cannot build a world of peace or one America in an increasingly peaceful world bound together in this web of mutuality, is that you can't get there unless you're willing to forgive your enemies. I never will forget one of the most -- I don't think I have ever spoken about this in public before -- but one of the most meaningful personal moments I have had as President was a conversation I had with Nelson Mandela.
And I said to him -- I said: "You know, I have read your book, and I have heard you speak.
And you spent time with my wife and daughter, and you have talked about inviting your jailers to your inauguration." And I said, "It's very moving." And I said: "You're a shrewd as well as a great man. But come on now, how did you really do that? You can't make me believe you didn't hate those people who did that to you for 27 years?"
He said, "I did hate them for quite a long time. After all, they abused me physically and emotionally. They separated me from my wife, and it eventually broke my family up. They kept me from seeing my children grow up." He said, "For quite a long time, I hated them."
And then he said: "I realized one day, breaking rocks, that they could take everything away from me, everything, but my mind and heart. Now, those things I would have to give away, and I simply decided I would not give them away."
So as you look around the world, you see -- how do you explain these three children who were killed in Ireland or all the people who were killed in the square when the people were told to leave the City Hall, there was a bomb there, and then they walked out toward the bomb?
What about all those families in Africa? I don't know. I can't pick up the telephone and call them and say, "I am so sorry this happened." How do we find that spirit?
All of you know I'm having to become quite an expert in this business of asking for forgiveness. And I ----. It gets a little easier the more you do it. And if you have a family, an Administration, a Congress and a whole country to ask, you're going to get a lot of practice.
But I have to tell that in these last days it has come home to me again, something I first learned as President, but it wasn't burned in my bones -- and that is that in order to get it, you have to be willing to give it. And all of us -- the anger, the resentment, the bitterness, the desire for recrimination against people you believe have wronged you -- they harden the heart and deaden the spirit and lead to self-inflicted wounds.
And so it is important that we are able to forgive those we believe have wronged us, even as we ask for forgiveness from people we have wronged.
And I heard that first -- first -- in the civil rights movement. "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
I never doubted Clinton's sincere committment to racial justice, but that speech illuminated something for me that I'd never quite understood before. The Democratic party is dysfunctional in so many ways, and it makes me crazy with its lack of discipline. (Just as Clinton did.) But, considering this country's sordid racial history, being the party of African Americans is the heart of what we stand for. It's what gives us our soul.
We like to think that we are about reason and rationality while the other side is all hot emotionality. But, we are all humans blesssed with the full spectrum of human attributes. The difference, it seems to me, is which human qualities lead us and where they take us.
The civil rights movement gives us the perfect window. Democrats led with their hearts on that issue. Although they knew it was politically dangerous they did it anyway because they were moved as human beings to do the right thing against their own political best interests. Immediately, the Republicans coolly and methodically set out to take advantage of the opening. The party of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan had no personal stake in the issue of racial justice. The Republican party had, since Lincoln, been the African Americans' home. Both of those men were from California, so they also had no regional attachment to the "southern culture" that would have made them nostalgic for the old ways. Their Southern Strategy was pure, cold political calculation and it served them very well. A look at the 2004 electoral map confirms it.
We led with our hearts on civil rights and they led with their heads. And we were right. I believed Bill Clinton when he said that he'd cried when he heard the "I have A Dream Speech." Many, many people did. That moment symbolized the crucible of American culture. It challenged us to rise above the original sin of slavery and do the right thing. The people who heard that call were the people who formed the heart of the Modern Democratic Party.
And when we hear some of our own complain about the Congressional Black Caucus "mau-mauing" somebody or say derisively that the African American constituency should be less race based and more class based, we need to remember that the congressional black caucus is also the fighting liberal caucus. (They were the first and loudest to protest the bogus impeachment, a fact which Clinton knew that day very well.) They are Democrats because the Democratic Party invited them in and asked them to sit at the table when it was politically difficult to do. They knew that Bill Clinton, for all his foibles, understood that and appreciated what that meant. And they stood by him when he was being persecuted by the other side. If there is today a more reliable constituency of authentic courageous liberal Democrats, I don't know what it is.
Martin Luther King was murdered before his dream could be realized. But it's getting better slowly but surely. There will be no going back. It's an enormous achievement for a screwed up country like ours that we've finally managed to make progress in spite of the huge cultural obstacles that were virtually built into our political system from the very beginning.
Democrats led the way on that and paid a huge political price. For all the talk of spinelessness and weakness that you hear out there, when the chips were down, the Democratic Party showed that it would stand up for what was right. There is no doubt which party Martin Luther King would choose today.
I'm not evolved enough, I'm afraid, to be forgiving for what the Republicans have done to this country these last few years. I'll need some time to come to that. But, I appreciate the notion that we can't let them sour us and turn inward. Nothing will ever change if we do that. And I figure as long as African Americans are in our party fighting the good fight, the least I can do is stand beside them.
digby 1/17/2005 09:42:00 AM
Sunday, January 16, 2005
A Long Time Coming
Frank Rich writes one of his typically interesting pieces today on the Armstrong Williams scandal and illustrates one of the reasons we are in such poor shape in the media wars.
[T]he Jan. 7 edition of CNN's signature show can stand as an exceptionally ripe paradigm of what is happening to the free flow of information in a country in which a timid news media, the fierce (and often covert) Bush administration propaganda machine, lax and sometimes corrupt journalistic practices, and a celebrity culture all combine to keep the public at many more than six degrees of separation from anything that might resemble the truth.
That he[Novak] and Mr. Begala would be allowed to lob softballs at a man who may have been a cog in illegal government wrongdoing, on a show produced by television's self-proclaimed "most trusted" news network, is bad enough. That almost no one would notice, let alone protest, is a snapshot of our cultural moment, in which hidden agendas in the presentation of "news" metastasize daily into a Kafkaesque hall of mirrors that could drive even the most earnest American into abject cynicism. But the ugly bigger picture reaches well beyond "Crossfire" and CNN.
[P]erhaps the most fascinating Williams TV appearance took place in December 2003, the same month that he was first contracted by the government to receive his payoffs. At a time when no one in television news could get an interview with Dick Cheney, Mr. Williams, of all "journalists," was rewarded with an extended sit-down with the vice president for the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a nationwide owner of local stations affiliated with all the major networks. In that chat, Mr. Cheney criticized the press for its coverage of Halliburton and denounced "cheap shot journalism" in which "the press portray themselves as objective observers of the passing scene, when they obviously are not objective."
This is a scenario out of "The Manchurian Candidate." Here we find Mr. Cheney criticizing the press for a sin his own government was at that same moment signing up Mr. Williams to commit. The interview is broadcast by the same company that would later order its ABC affiliates to ban Ted Koppel's "Nightline" recitation of American casualties in Iraq and then propose showing an anti-Kerry documentary, "Stolen Honor," under the rubric of "news" in prime time just before Election Day. (After fierce criticism, Sinclair retreated from that plan.) Thus the Williams interview with the vice president, implicitly presented as an example of the kind of "objective" news Mr. Cheney endorses, was in reality a completely subjective, bought-and-paid-for fake news event for a broadcast company that barely bothers to fake objectivity and both of whose chief executives were major contributors to the Bush-Cheney campaign. The Soviets couldn't have constructed a more ingenious or insidious plot to bamboozle the citizenry.
The Leninists of the conservative movement morphed into Stalinists sometime during the Clinton administration and have been becoming more and more open about their totalitarian bent. But this has been brewing for a long, long time. In fact, it was the red-baiter of red-baiters, Richard Nixon, who set the whole thing in motion. That should serve as a vivid reminder that those who preach the gospel with the most evangelical fervor are the ones most likely to be sinners. The most zealous anti-communists developed a very inhealthy appetite for the tactics of their enemies. (Or maybe it was that fascination rather than any real philosophical objection that led them to become obsessed in the first place.)
As we live here in America, basking in the golden glow of conservatism's apotheosis, Dan Rather's "retirement" represents the completion of another piece of the American Soviet project.
This is just sad:
According to a Broadcasting & Cable source in Washington, D.C., CBS News president Andrew Heyward, along with Washington bureau chief Janet Leissner, recently met with White House communications director Dan Bartlett, in part to repair chilly relations with the Bush administration.
CBS News’ popularity at the White House-never high to begin with-plunged further in the wake of Dan Rather’s discredited 60 Minutes story on George Bush’s National Guard service.
An incentive for making nice is the impending report from the two-member panel investigating CBS's use of now-infamous documents for the 60 Minutes piece.
Heyward was -working overtime to convince Bartlett that neither CBS News nor Rather had a vendetta against the White House,- our source says, - and from here on out would do everything it could to be fair and balanced. - CBS declined to comment.
That had to have been a sweet victory. Seeing CBS tugging its metaphorical forelock in deference to the Republican White House was the culmination of more than thirty years of cultural indoctrination into Nixon's dark paranoid fantasy of the liberal media. But then the modern GOP is nothing if not the party of Richard Nixon.
From "The President and the Press" by David Wise in the Atlantic (sorry, subscription req'd):
In April of 1971, John Ehrlichman, the President's chief assistant for domestic affairs, complained in person to Richard S. Salant, the president of CBS News, about Dan Rather, the network's White House correspondent. Ehrlichman was in New York to appear on the CBS Morning News with correspondent John Hart. Afterwards Hart and Ehrlichman adjourned for breakfast at the Edwardian Room of the Plaza, where they were joined by Salant. The President's assistant brought up the subject of CBS's White House reporter.
"Rather has been jobbing us," Ehrlichman said. Salant, seeking to inject a lighter note into the conversation, told how Rather had been hired by CBS in 1962 after he had saved the life of a horse, an act of heroism that resulted in considerable publicity and brought him to the attention of the network. It was then that Rather went to work for CBS News as chief of its Southwest bureau in Dallas. When President Kennedy was assassinated in that city, Rather went on the air for the network, and his cool, poised coverage of the tragedy gained him national recognition. After Dallas, Salant explained to Ehrlichman, CBS brought Rather to Washington, in part because the new President, Lyndon Johnson, was a fellow Texan.
"Aren't you going to open a bureau in Austin where Dan could have a job?" Ehrlichman asked Salant. He then accused Rather of never coming to see him in the White House, and he suggested it might be beneficial if Rather took a year's vacation.
Walter Cronkite believes the Nixon Administration attacked the news media "to raise the credibility of the Administration. It's like a first-year physics experiment with two tubes of water--you put pressure on one side and it makes the other side go up or down." He added: "I have charged that this is a 'conspiracy.' I don't regret my use of that word."
By applying constant pressure, in ways seen and unseen, the leaders of the government have attempted to shape the news to resemble the images seen through the prism of their own power. The Administration's attacks, Richard Salant acknowledged, have "made us all edgy. We've thought about things we shouldn't think about."
That article was written in 1973. And it was before they set the second part of their plan in motion. While diligently working the refs for the last 30 years they were simultaneously building an alternative media to push from the competitive side and drive the discourse to the right.
Today, that dream of control is fully realized. Republicans routinely bully any reporter or organization that doesn't play ball while they feed lots of juicy propaganda to their bought and paid for media like FOX, Rush, Drudge and The NY Post knowing that the story will work its way into the mainstream anyway. They created an entertainment model for news in which entertainment values superceded civic values and it attracted a different kind of person to the field. Over time, fewer and fewer reporters wouldn't play ball because those that refused were weeded out in a form of (un)natural selection. In the end, the survivors don't even know they are biased. They are so enmeshed in this system of celebrity punishment and rewards that their own self esteem is now drawn from their acceptability to the (Republican) establishment. And each and every day the partisan right wing media pushes the discourse a few inches further to the right.
So just this week we find out that Armstrong Williams is being paid by the taxpayers to promote the President's political agenda and the social security administration employees are being required to disseminate Republican talking points to the public during a major policy battle. There are undoubtedly many more examples of the literal merging of state and party.
But the media has long since been corrupted by a far more sophisticated, legal system of payola and influence peddling. It makes little difference now whether there are more Armstrong Williamses because there are many, many people who will happily perform his function while taking a check from a right wing foundation or think tank.
The right wing noise machine works like a single organism, relentlessly attacking any threat to the Republican party, unquestioningly advancing anything their leadership directs. It's just plain greed that led them to use taxpayer money when there is so much special interest money to be used for the exact same purpose.
In a just world this Armstrong Williams scandal would get at least the exposure the "selling" of the Lincoln Bedroom tale got in the Clinton administration. At the time there were endless stories about abusing the public trust and and forcing the taxpayers to foot the bill for partisan activity. There were months of handwringing and hankie clutching and "how will we ever sleep again knowing that political activity took place in the People's House!"
Anybody want to lay a bet that tthis scandal produces anything like that? Are any Democrats prepared to go on television and perform a soap opera prosecution featuring phony pathos and crocodile tears about "sending a message to the children?" Are we prepared to boost ratings and give the media reason to defy the White House and the right wing message behemoth with a show they can't resist? (Certainly, when given the chance our hard boiled political operative Paul Begala didn't even nick Armstrong with a ball point pen, much less stick the shiv in as Novak would have been so delighted to do if the shoe were on the other foot.)
I'm not holding my breath. The fact that no WMD in Iraq is causing nary a peep from anybody tells me that even body bags and billions can't shake the machine. I'm not sure anything will except total economic meltdown. Sadly, we may just get our wish.
digby 1/16/2005 01:23:00 PM