June 08, 2004
Paranoia is non-partisan
Predictably, Republicans and Democrats have begun to conflate their ideological opponents with the terrorist enemy. One even gets the feeling that each fears the other more than they fear Al Qaeda. After all, outed Al Qaeda operatives are likely to be arrested immediately upon identification, while Democrat and Republican operatives freely roam the streets.
One criticism which Al Gore has consistently leveled at the Bush administration is that it seeks political advantage by playing upon people's fears. It's a common claim. Pacific Views, for instance, has been chronicling "the steady drumbeat of paranoia" coming from anonymous administration officials for some time now. When the left accuses the right of fear mongering, conservatives respond by accusing liberals of not comprehending the gravity of the threat posed by the terrorist enemy. "We're at war," they say, as if we were unaware. But then they quickly move to "put things in perspective" and explain that, on second thought, we're not really at war like we were in Vietnam or World War II. (Max Boot demonstrates how it's done in a piece headlined "Reality check - This is war." He writes, "We forgot what real war looks like. Iraq is providing an unwelcome reminder of how messy and costly it can be." But then he spends the rest of the article arguing that Iraq isn't much of a war after all "if you compare it with earlier conflicts.")
Sometimes they go even further. Spinsanity notes that "Republicans are responding to increased Democratic criticism of the war in Iraq with attempts to brand it as illegitimate and even treasonous." Peggy Noonan says the same in more diplomatic tones. She writes, "let's catch the terrorists now and leave the second-guessing for later." It's almost as if she wants to demonstrate, negatively, just how unhinged the Republican leadership has become.
But perhaps the conservatives' scare tactics should not simply be dismissed as rhetoric or propaganda. Do they not seem to be genuinely afraid? One could make a good case that these days, more than anything else, fear drives the conservative Republican's political agenda. They fear Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi more than they fear Al Qaeda. You need not exert much effort to find articles like this one by David Limbaugh, or this one by radio squawker Al Rantel. Of course, the Democrats are no different. Al Gore and allied liberals clearly fear Bush's reelection more than they fear the next terrorist attack.
This back and forth resembles the liberal/conservative debate concerning media bias. The conservatives squeal: "The media has a liberal bias!" The liberals retort: "No, the media has a conservative bias." Few step back and wonder what it means that both liberals and conservatives feel that the media are slanted toward the other side. For the fact remains that, whether or not the media outlet in question leans left or right, it's likely hawking a shoddy product.
How long will it be before US citizens, when confronted with both conservative criticism of Democrats and liberal criticism of Republicans, simply conclude, "Hey, they're both right!"? Actually, there's good reason to believe many have already done so. Or do you think the majority do not vote because they would be pleased with either of the candidates representing the duopoly parties? Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, both feel embattled because they are. Taken together they barely constitute a majority of the population. This does not mean, however, that they do not suffer from extreme paranoia.
Peggy Noonan, in the above-linked article, provides this free-associative internal monologue: "I should get a new dress for the graduation at the Saks sale. They could blow up the Lincoln Tunnel. Meg would love one of those little Chanel knockoffs from the street vender. If New York is bombed while we're in Boston, where will we stay? If Boston is bombed while we're at the graduation, how will we get home? Bring cousin Holly's number in northern Connecticut. Pick up mascara."
In setting up his political horror-story scenario, Al Rantel refers to the press conference recently held by Ashcroft and Mueller. Like many conservatives/Republicans, he naively takes the stunt at face value. This is not surprising. It confirms his prejudices, or rather, his "gut instinct," as he calls them. His attitude also reveals one of the major problems with the two party system: Republicans and Democrats are often unwilling to question or even be suspicious of roughly one half of our elected officials. Despite certain appearances, they're apologists of government, cozy with the state.
The WSWS, by the way, provided a prescient summary of the media spectacle orchestrated by the heads of the Justice Department and FBI. Soon after, the Washington Post that by calling the press conference, the officials violated the Homeland Security Act and basically contradicted the line Tom Ridge was peddling on the morning talk shows earlier in the day. One is left wondering whether Ashcroft is a rogue element, driven by his own sense of panic and impending doom, or whether the exercise was a carefully coordinated political operation.
It is no wonder that so many people have begun to ask themselves whether the Bush administration really has its act together. Is a group of officials who can neither follow their own rules, nor even fashion a consistent message, capable of successfully prosecuting the so-called war on terror?
This piece orginally appeared here.
Posted by charles sanson at June 8, 2004 07:21 PMNumber one… I’m stunned that someone else besides me would actually link to the World Socialist Web Site.
Charles, you’re not trying to tease me here are you? Christopher keeps trying to tell me that all my communist fears are unfounded.
I’m not really paranoid if someone really is out to get me, am I?
Posted by: Eric Simonson at June 9, 2004 01:33 AMEric, you must be learning from Bush how to tie unrelated concepts together. If socialists are communists then you must be preparing to call for war with the Brits, the Germans, the Scandanavian countries, the French, the Canadians, etc. etc. All these countries have socialist programs and large numbers of constituents who support socialist leaning parties, not, by the way, to the exclusion of capitalism. Appears a little paranoia may be clouding your definitions here.
Posted by: David R Remer at June 9, 2004 06:26 AMThat’s a good article, charles. Obviusly, I like the pot shots at the Bush administration, but I also like the comment on both the left and the right claiming bias in the mass media.
I rarely hear someone point out that bit of truth, but I disagree with your conclusion. I think the cause is that the mainstream media actually does a fair job on objectivity; skewing either way only on a sensationalist issue by issue basis to build ratings and avoid being “scooped”.
For example, the media hyped the Iraq war itself - they all wanted street cred as a combat journalists, but remained skeptical about WMD - hyping UN inspector’s dismissals of Bush’s evidence as “crap”.
As far as the Republicans using fear to manipulate voters, you watch. We’ll see some creative tinkering with terrorism alert levels, and a whole lot of talk about not changing presidents in the middle of a “War On Terror (tm)”.
Excellent article for an Orwellian World. Conservatives have far more power to spread misinformation and inflame paranoia, through ownership and government collusion. As Noam Chomsky points out, no US newspaper has ever reported the sale of US attack helicopters to Israel. The Creators website has about 31 Conservative, 4 Independent and 11 Liberal columists. All these columnists are intellectuals compared to Limbaugh and Hannity who rely on fear and paranoid delusions to attract listeners with lies.
Posted by: Bayviking at June 9, 2004 01:09 PMEric, I would submit that in spite of insistent denials by those with a certain agenda, certain other people really ARE out to “get” us. Being 1000% confident and even cocky regarding one’s chances of survival didn’t make Alan Berg any less dead at the hands of his Al Qaeda captors. Pretending we were unassailable in our homeland didn’t prevent 9/11 either.
But the definition of bravery is not the absence of fear, but the perserverence in what must be done in spite of the fear. What must be done is to fight those who would murder us, and do so with technological efficiency and ferocity in self-defense, while maintaining a moral high ground, which is an essential element to modern conflict. (Losing that high ground is essentially what made Slobodan Milosevic lose—otherwise he might have gotten Russia more solidly on his side and possibly even made NATO back down. In a modern world, truly, Right MAKES Might.)
The binary partisan political posturing isn’t driven by “fear” of the other party. It’s driven by a simple desire to be the faction in charge, and a willingness to sacrifice American lives in order to do so—military lives in the Republican camp, and civilian lives (by way of sabotaged anti-terrorist operations) in the Democrat camp. This is why the swing voters tend to “go right” when it becomes a debate over foreign policy and defense: losing people in chocolate chip camouflage is a lesser of two evils compared to losing people in business suits and dresses, or kid’s clothing. This is something the people in the military understand, themselves, and they know it’s why they fight.
David, I would agree that not all Socialists are Communists. But all Communists are, by definition, Socialists. Where conservatives sometimes slip up is in malforming their Venn diagram. Communism is the little circle within the big one. On the other hand, all that which is within the big one, is an economic idea based on theft, ultimately—Marx’ notion that the proletariat should just steal the money of the rich (and kill any of the rich who complain) and all would live happily ever after. That Marxist agenda does not get fundamentally different as one steps from the smaller circle, to the larger, other than the discretion and savvy of the way the Agenda is carried out.
AP,
“skewing either way only on a sensationalist issue by issue basis to build ratings and avoid being ‘scooped’.”
I think there is actual editorial bias, but that that bias is targeting a demographic with that bias. You’re not going to sell laundry detergent to a Democrat if you’re telling him over and over in your news stories that Bush is winning the war on terrorism. You need to juice it up with things that will make the Democrat self-congratulate and feel himself to be “in tune with current events”, and that means hyping Abu Ghraib six ways from Sunday, and censoring Alan Berg’s death into non-existence. And then you sell the proverbial laundry detergent.
Media bias exists, but it’s passive and advertising-oriented, rather than active and indoctrination-oriented. If there were fewer liberal people to broadcast to, the existing media would broadcast less of a “left wing bias”.
Right wing radio is interesting in that it managed to switch that game around: persuade the populace to a right-leaning attitude, while boosting a listening audience at the same time, and thus by the increased audience, dragging advertising companies to the door with the lure of the opportunity. The advantage of an active bias is that it doesn’t have to wait for a mood-swing in the audience to adjust its programming agenda. It can lead the charge, rather than just follow it.
But this doesn’t mean there is no “thought leadership” on the left. That is done mostly on college campuses, where the hippies who couldn’t find real jobs found themselves relegated to teaching (which I say tongue in cheek because that was my father’s profession as well—and he was neither hippy nor left-wing).
Bayviking:
“no US newspaper has ever reported the sale of US attack helicopters to Israel”
That would only be because none of the left-leaning media outlets consider it particularly damaging to the Bush administration. That’s no Abu Ghraib there.
Posted by: Ciggy at June 9, 2004 02:02 PMOh, come on, Ciggy,
“On the other hand, all that which is within the big one, is an economic idea based on theft, ultimately—Marx’ notion that the proletariat should just steal the money of the rich (and kill any of the rich who complain) and all would live happily ever after.”
Look, Marxism simply doesn’t work without market forces in action within it. But, to say Marxism is based on the poor stealing from the rich, is equal to saying capitalism is based on the rich stealing from and economically enslaving the poor.
Pure rhetoric.
Capitalism without Socialism means an unrestrained market that serves the most powerful only. No where on earth does that exist in a stable state.
While I agree media is biased by sales, primarily, I think it is also blind not to look at the influence of Rupert Murdoch in the media. He is the new Randolph Hearst. Yellow Journalism is not exactly new. The use of “patriotic and paranoid nationalism” to promote oneself isn’t exactly new either.
Eric: “I’m not really paranoid if someone really is out to get me, am I?”
Well, maybe. Extreme jealousy is still irrational even if your spouse is cheating on you.
American Pundit: “I think the cause is that the mainstream media actually does a fair job on objectivity.”
Indeed, we certainly disagree there. I think journalistic objectivity is a myth, a pious abstraction invented by journalists to lend some kind of credibility to their incompetent fantastisizing.
Ciggy: “The binary partisan political posturing isn’t driven by “fear” of the other party.”
Sure it is. If it were not, the lesser of two evils argument, which is actually just political blackmail, and is common on both sides of the ideological divide, wouldn’t be as popular and persuasive as it apparently is.
Posted by: charles at June 9, 2004 03:34 PMCiggy says:
The binary partisan political posturing isn’t driven by “fear” of the other party. It’s driven by a simple desire to be the faction in charge, and a willingness to sacrifice American lives in order to do so—military lives in the Republican camp, and civilian lives (by way of sabotaged anti-terrorist operations) in the Democrat camp.
Sabotaged anti-terrorist operations? That’s a weighty charge in any age, let alone times like these. Would I be correct in assuming you mean the often-repeated charge that opposition to the war and other peaceful actions of dissent and open debate put american lives in danger and actually aids the terrorists? If not, I would be very interested in specifics.
Posted by: Jarin at June 9, 2004 09:47 PMCiggy, I’d also be curious to know what you mean by “sabotaged anti-terrorist operations”. That’s a pretty serious charge.
As for mainstream media objectivity, I’ll concede that editorial bias exists to some extent - left and right.
But the premise of my statement was charles pointing out that both the left and the right complain that the mainstream media is biased against them. charles offered his explanation for that phenomenon, I offered mine, what’s yours?
Am Pundit,
… the premise of my statement was charles pointing out that both the left and the right complain that the mainstream media is biased against them. charles offered his explanation for that phenomenon, I offered mine, what’s yours?
The Mediocrity and fear of reporters that they might not get a story run that does not include a minimum of fact checking and does include a lot of horse pituy about how the reader feels.
For news to be truly news it must begin to report more about what is done (that would be fact)and less about imagined motives or instant poll results. I really don’t care what the other readers think when I am digesting fact. I don’t believe a supposedly “objective” reporter can tell me how I will react before I have even read the story.
That the reporters too often include little of newsvalue in their storys is why people are turning down the newspaper subscriptions and turning on the radio. On the radio they can pick the bias they wish to hear.
The entire field of Journalism has discredited itself with report after report of studies and events that if not created from whole cloth are certainly not the result of indepth investigation.
Opinions belong on the editorial page. More often than not reporters are reporting on their opinion. That is not news.
Posted by: Wadendas at June 14, 2004 08:17 AMAm Pundit,
… the premise of my statement was charles pointing out that both the left and the right complain that the mainstream media is biased against them. charles offered his explanation for that phenomenon, I offered mine, what’s yours?
The Mediocrity of reporting. What passes for news includes a lot of horse pituy about how the reader feels.
That the reporters too often include little of newsvalue in their storys is why people are turning down the newspaper subscriptions and turning on the radio. On the radio they can pick the bias they wish to hear.
The entire field of Journalism has discredited itself with report after report of studies and events that if not created from whole cloth are certainly not the result of any indepth investigation.
Opinions belong on the editorial page. More often than not reporters are reporting opinion. That is not news.
Posted by: Wadendas at June 14, 2004 08:26 AMAm Pundit,
… the premise of my statement was charles pointing out that both the left and the right complain that the mainstream media is biased against them. charles offered his explanation for that phenomenon, I offered mine, what’s yours?
The Mediocrity of reporting. What passes for news includes a lot of horse pituy about how the reader feels.
That the reporters too often include little of newsvalue in their storys is why people are turning down the newspaper subscriptions and turning on the radio. On the radio they can pick the bias they wish to hear.
The entire field of Journalism has been discredited with reports of studies that don’t stand up under scrutiny. And the widely circulated stories that if not created from whole cloth were certainly not the result of any indepth investigation.
Opinions belong on the editorial page. It seems, more often than not, reporters are reporting opinion. That is not news.
Posted by: Wadendas at June 14, 2004 08:31 AMGreg,
“Look, Marxism simply doesn’t work without market forces in action within it. But, to say Marxism is based on the poor stealing from the rich, is equal to saying capitalism is based on the rich stealing from and economically enslaving the poor.”
Market forces were exactly what Marx despised the most. He is the one who coined the phrase “property is theft”, which in turn implies that all property is the collective property of the masses, and that any time any one individual gains a horde of it, the only way he could have gotten it is by “stealing” it from the masses. He advocated theft from the rich as a way for the masses, which he termed the “rightfull owners” (of all property), to reclaim what is theirs. One sees that attitude on the left in every permutation, from a ghetto activist to a limousine liberal (who offers up every other rich person’s wealth in an attempt to preserve their own from the mob’s depradations—in the form of special tax shelters).
There is less utility in flat-out denying the Agenda, than there is in justifying it, spilling the beans, telling it like it is, and actually defending the real position. Noam Chomsky does so with aplomb.
I’d be the first to say that both socialistic and capitalistic elements are needed to make a society works, but few people truly understand why this is necessary: you need the fuel of profit motive, and the engine block of boundaries to behavior, in order to allow a “vehicle” to go forward. The details are a matter of engineering.
Charles,
“If it were not, the lesser of two evils argument, which is actually just political blackmail, and is common on both sides of the ideological divide, wouldn’t be as popular and persuasive as it apparently is.”
Okay, point taken on that. I was thinking in terms of party leadership, and you were thinking in terms of the masses they manipulate with their “good cop, bad cop” routine. (And each faction’s “good cop” is the other faction’s “bad cop”, so they gain some synergy that way, because about half the population hates war, and the other half hate the people who hate war. Working off of that dichotomy is child’s play.)
Jarin,
“Would I be correct in assuming you mean the often-repeated charge that opposition to the war and other peaceful actions of dissent and open debate put american lives in danger and actually aids the terrorists?”
Not really a correct assumption, no. What I have in mind is, for example, when John Ashcroft releases the photos of known terrorists who might be trying to travel within the U.S., and certain leftist publications who refuse to run the photos because, well, they don’t want to cooperate with Ashcroft because he’s Ashcroft (as opposed to Janet Reno). “Peaceful action of dissent” though it might seem to be, it could eventually be like refusing to warn of 9/11 on 9/10, proverbially.
AP,
“charles offered his explanation for that phenomenon, I offered mine, what’s yours?”
Targeting a demographic to market the “product” of the news, boosted from time to time by some congratulatory support in liberal cocktail parties for “really sticking it to those evil Republicans”, a level of support that the media will glom onto so long as it doesn’t cost them advertisers.
Posted by: Ciggy at June 14, 2004 04:19 PM“It seems, more often than not, reporters are reporting opinion. That is not news.”
However, opinion is considered “news” if it is mouthed by the right person or groups, like the famed ‘anonymous official,’ or PR flacks, the campaign spokesperson etc.
The news value of reporting would be greatly increased if media outfits simply ignored such sheisters, and it would become clear that most reporters (and most of their total product) are completely superfluous.
Posted by: charles at June 14, 2004 06:23 PMCiggy:
Thank you for responding. That is an interesting characterization of events.
What I have in mind is, for example, when John Ashcroft releases the photos of known terrorists who might be trying to travel within the U.S., and certain leftist publications who refuse to run the photos because, well, they don’t want to cooperate with Ashcroft because he’s Ashcroft (as opposed to Janet Reno). “Peaceful action of dissent” though it might seem to be, it could eventually be like refusing to warn of 9/11 on 9/10, proverbially.
Your position, unfortunately, fails to take into account the full facts of the matter. Such as the fact that six of these names were released months ago, and the seventh still has to be evaluated for possible criminal charges, so is not even a suspect in a crime but a “person of interest” as defined by our legal system. Also, this press conference skirted around Tom Ridge and the DHS, who have the responsibility for alerting the public to terrorist threats. Painting the adverse reactions to this press conference as liberals reacting to Ashcroft not being Janet Reno is absurd. Even many conservatives decry the way this press conference was carried out, as can be seen if you follow the links in the original article. And painting the refusal to publish (or re-publish, in six of these seven cases) these pictures in publications you cite as leftist to begin with as sabotaging anti-terrorism operations when they were not even released by the department in charge of overseeing anti-terrorism operations is illogical beyond all reason and an unfair characterization of the left.
Posted by: Jarin at June 16, 2004 01:08 PMSo that was the key factor missing in Bush’s defense of his air defense organization’s inaction on 9/11—that they were awaiting “Tom Ridge’s approval” to do anything?
My good man, you have just refuted the entire premise of Michael Moore’s latest film. Karl Rove should be kissing your feet right about now.
Ciggy:
I find this comment incomprehensible and have no idea what point you are trying to make with it. How could, on 9/11, they have been waiting for the approval of the director of an agency which did not then exist? The department of homeland security was created in response to 9/11. Tom Ridge was not sworn in to the Office of Homeland Security Advisor until October 8, 2001. Previously, he was the governor of Pennsylvania.
Also, while I have not seen this film (or any of Michael Moore’s work, actually) I was under the impression that it supposedly deals with the aftermath of 9/11 and the premise that 9/11 was used to push Bush’s agenda. How do my statements in any way refute that premise? (Or am I mistaken about the movie’s subject matter?)
Posted by: Jarin at June 18, 2004 02:09 AM
