I would say for me the most important realization I had in 2009 was that our media is far more propagandizing, far more advocating against popular sentiment and in favor of privileged opinion than I realized. The first shocker was the realization that Gulf War I was sold to the American people on a pack of lies exposed after the fact and our media didn't care but foreign press did. Since then I learned of several other stories that are easily accessible and in a lot of cases common knowledge outside the U.S., but simply are not discussed and for the most part unknown to Americans. For instance, who knows what happened on September 11th, 1973? Who's heard of Iran Air Flight 655? Who knows that the U.S. and Israel stand virtually alone against the entire world, including the Arab world, opposing a peaceful resolution in Palestine? Americans are not informed about such things and it just so happens that this is beneficial to the privileged. The media, far from looking out for the little guy and being a watchdog, in fact enables ignorance in key areas, which is very helpful for some sectors of the population, namely the wealthy and powerful.
One politician that is not a favored candidate for the wealthy and powerful is Ron Paul. He really doesn't serve the special interests. So if the media is propagandizing as I said we would expect, then we would not expect him to get favorable coverage. We would expect, for instance, if he were to win the straw pole at CPAC by a wide margin, the media to downplay the significance of that. So here's our media's reaction to Paul's big win.
The USA Today headline is Step by step, Romney lining up support for 2012
The Washington Post article never once even mentions Ron Paul.
Fox News goes in to damage control mode.
We're to believe that Sarah Palin represents some sort of grass roots movement. Nonsense. As if she is some sort of "Rogue" candidate, bucking the system and standing for principle. Banker bailouts, bridges to nowhere. Give me a break. She's Hannah Montana. She is not in the least someone that rose to stardom because of grass roots support. She was selected in a board room and the Republican establishment is trying to make her a star. Ron Paul sustains wide and passionate support despite key efforts on the part of major media to marginalize him, make him out to be kooky, etc. That's a real grass roots movement, and it continues.
6 comments:
"We would expect, for instance, if he were to win the straw pole at CPAC by a wide margin, the media to downplay the significance of that. So here's our media's reaction to Paul's big win."
Actually I think the media should mostly ignore the convention. It is effectively a convention of loons.
But beyond my personal thoughts on the matter - Ron Paul's issue is that although he has a fanatical and motivated base it is relatively small in actual numbers. (Perhaps his supporters are also more likely to attend these types of conventions?) One can blame the media for this I suppose but I think it more likely it so because he is out of step w/ the majority of the populace.
But they didn't ignore the convention last year when the right people won.
You do sort of have to be fanatical to have a successful grass roots movement that produces real change. To sit back and be lazy and moderate is to allow the corporate media to walk all over you and set the agenda. When you do make that effort you're called a loon.
Jon -
If you say they didn't ignore the convention last year I have no reason to doubt you. Though from my perspective they should have ignored it last year as well.
I ado not disagree with you in the following statement -
"You do sort of have to be fanatical to have a successful grass roots movement that produces real change."
My concern is when one is radicalized and fanatical but the foundation is based (mostly?) on false premises. I'd argue the TEA party movement is one such movement.
AFAIK (please correct me if I misrepresent or am outright wrong)
(a) don't really care about the deficits. Or didn't seem to care prior when it was a Republican administration withe a Republican congress. Though I concede I may be committing some type of fallacious argument here.
(b) Don't realize that for most of them taxes have actually gone down.
(c) Seems to have a of Christianism and latent (or is it obvious?) racism that I find scary.
At least I think research indicates this - a and b, not c.
I had no intention of implying you were a loon, if I came across as such.
I have been reading your blog for a while now. We can disagree and I hope I can do so respectfully.
I consider myself a liberal w/ some libertarian hints. I think you are libertarian. Perhaps previously a right leaning libertarian that is slowly migrating leftwards though I might be mistaken on this. Either way I appreciate you sharing your journey where ever you may end up.
Paul
Don't worry. No offense taken. I thought you were calling Ron Paul supporters generally loons, not me specifically. And you are reading me right in that you recognizing I'm kind of migrating somewhat left of liberterianism.
Ron Paul sort of was the start of the tea party movement. These days though he distances himself from them. His #1 priority is cutting government spending that is very deadly (i.e. our foreign policy) and he would in fact not mind so much spending money on public works rather than building bridges which are later blown up in Iraq. He believes, and I agree with him, that the tea party movement has been hijacked by certain people (like Sarah Palin) that are quick to cut government spending that helps poor people but not so quick to cut spending that helps big business. He sees the Reagan revolution as the same sort of thing. People really wanted government to shrink. Reagan rode that wave into office, then went on and grew government like crazy. The tea partyers by looking to Sarah Palin are going to get more of the same.
Taxes may be down for the tea partyers, but still they have legitimate grievances. These are generally middle class people and if you look at the data of real wage growth for the middle class and the lower class it's pretty grim. This is a consequence of the crony capitalist system we have in my view. Chomsky has an interesting commentary on the tea partyers that makes the same point. These people are getting screwed. We should try and help them understand the real causes of the problems and the ways they are being manipulated and maybe try to bring about effective change.
I would have no issues with cutting military spending. However, and unfortunately, this does not seem likely anytime soon. So in this respect I agree with you and (presumably) Ron Paul.
I am not knowledgeable enough in the matter to say how or by how much but it should be something that ought to be seriously considered. More radical ideas (?) could include with doing away w/ some branches of the military. For example: air force and the navy would combine into a single branch and the army/marines into another. From my level some of the functions of these services seem to overlap. Anyway beyond the dogmatic reasons for not doing so there may be legitimate arguments against it but it should be honestly debated.
"People really wanted government to shrink."
This is not a phrase I ever use. I think the government can and should do. My phrase would be roughly - "I want the government to work efficiently" - a government where the political class is truly interested in making government work well. That is my goal - idealistic perhaps.
"Taxes may be down for the tea partyers, but still they have legitimate grievances."
I'd like to say there is no disagreement here. However, though I concede the grievances may be legitimate I disagree with them on who is to blame.
"These people are getting screwed. We should try and help them understand the real causes of the problems and the ways they are being manipulated and maybe try to bring about effective change."
I agree with the goal.
But let me ask a *hypothetical* question - if the means to address these issues were to involve more gov't involvement (aka bigger gov't) what are the chances of success?
I think people can be persuaded if you can make a good argument that bigger government is the answer. So if that is the solution then I'd say there is hope it can be implemented.
Post a Comment