A Single Imperial Class: Political and Media

POSTED BY: Howard
UPDATED: Sunday, April 20, 2025 15:57
VIEWED: 4605
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

HOWARD

Friday, October 21, 2005 7:27 PM

Here is an excellent bang-on-the-money analysis
of Beltway/Media professional incest as written by
Norman Solomon:

October 21, 2005

Media at a Huge Crossroads
25 Years After Reagan's Triumph
By NORMAN SOLOMON

"It bought us the time we needed."
Lieutenant-General James Lovelace, USA

By a twist of political fate, the Oct. 28 deadline for special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to take action on the Plamegate matter is exactly 25 years after the only debate of the presidential race between Ronald Reagan and incumbent Jimmy Carter. How the major media outlets choose to handle the current explosive scandal in the months ahead will have enormous impacts on the trajectory of American politics.

A quarter of a century ago, conservative Republicans captured the White House. Today, a more extreme incarnation of the GOP's right wing has a firm grip on the executive branch. None of it would have been possible without a largely deferential press corps.

Among other things, Reagan's victory over Carter was a media triumph of style in the service of far-right agendas. When their only debate occurred on Oct. 28, 1980, a week before the election, Carter looked rigid and defensive while Reagan seemed at ease, making impact with zingers like "There you go again." More than ever, one-liners dazzled the press corps.

For the next eight years, a "Teflon presidency" had the news media making excuses for the nation's chief executive, who often got his facts wrong while substituting folksy exclamations for documented assertions. The Democratic Party's majorities on Capitol Hill rarely challenged Reagan, and the Washington press corps used the passivity of the Democrats to justify its own. As Walter Karp wrote in Harper's magazine a few months after Reagan left office, "the private story behind every major non-story during the Reagan administration was the Democrats' tacit alliance with Reagan."

That tacit alliance included going easy on Reagan and his vice-president-turned-successor, George H.W. Bush -- despite the Iran-Contra scandal that exposed their roles in the illegal funneling of aid to the Nicaraguan Contras, a CIA-backed army that intentionally killed civilians in Nicaragua while trying to implement Washington's goal of overthrowing the Sandinista government.

"For eight years," Karp wrote in mid-1989, "the Democratic opposition had shielded from the public a feckless, lawless president with an appalling appetite for private power. That was the story of the Reagan years, and Washington journalists evidently knew it. Yet they never turned the collusive politics of the Democratic Party into news."

Today, words like "feckless" and "lawless" seem like understatements when applied to the current president. A pattern of mendacity, callousness and appalling priorities has brought deadly consequences from Baghdad to New Orleans. The administration appears to be nearly drowning in scandals. Yet the news media -- again with notable assists from Democratic leaders in Congress -- are doing much to keep the Bush regime afloat.

Predictably, the Oct. 15 referendum on a constitution in Iraq provided the Bush administration with a new opportunity to roll out a retooled line of propaganda vehicles. A manipulative process, massaged under the duress of occupation, yielded a "yes" vote among Iraqis who chose to participate. Seen through a narrow lens -- keeping the carnage and intimidation out of the frame -- the election was a victory for democracy. Seen more broadly, it was a travesty.

Like two decades ago, the absence of tough Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill -- combined with an overly respectful press -- enables the White House to retain extensive political leverage. While the day of reckoning in human terms is every day in Iraq, the political day of reckoning on Iraq policy has yet to come in Washington. And at the rate things are going, many more years will pass before the need for withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq becomes incontrovertible in American media and politics.

Part of the Reagan legacy is the

GEEZER

Friday, October 21, 2005 10:48 PM

If you're going to continue posting other people's ideas, at least provide a cite or link to the original source so we can see where the info is coming from. Context is important.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 22, 2005 12:40 AM

Is there more to the article? I'll buy the argument that most Dems and media are tacitly conniving with Bush, but I'd like some insight as to WHY.

Please don't think they give a shit.

HOWARD

Saturday, October 22, 2005 2:19 AM

On Why?:

This is my account of the situation:

As my headline that I wrote says. A single imperial class of a superpower or empire which
ever one prefers. Corporate, Media and the Rep/Dem facade of difference.

Let us look at this issue. One problem in the United States in histrical terms within the public
political sector has been that there is not at the top level as opposed to grass roots a cultural or institutional design of questioning the leader. At first some asked whether George Washington should be crowned. While the man who is President may not be like a European Monarch of old (although: Bush snr behaved like an aristocrat) the position of President in terms of the chair and institution is very Monarchial. Under most Parliamentary systems the Prime Minister for example has to do two things. One maintained being elected on a personal level in a local constituancy and two appear in the Parliament to explain policy and face vigorous questioning. The American President is insulated from such obligations. Like a King.

Furthermore in the American system non of the cabinet needs to be elected the entire cabinet can be drawn from people who have never stood for election. Thus a awful statecraft mass murderer like Henry Kissinger was able to rise to the peak of power yet in his life the man has never put himself up for election before the voters. In the British and Canadian systems for example every member of the Cabinet is elected by a local constituency. This is so in most countries. There manifests thus an aura of distance of the technicrat courtiers of the cabinet around the King like President in the US system. Again members of cabinet in other countries have to appear on the floor of their House of Commons to explain policy and face hard questions. Again in the USA the cabinet is provided with a culture of insulation and undeserved deference.

So that is background. Now to the topics at hand. Why does the NY Times or a Democrat Senator tread so softly? Well some reasons can be deep and some so shallow that it boggles the mind. These people are addicted to the flame of power like moths and they do not want to risk be shut out of the feast like Chimpanzees who jump up and down and scream their support and triumpth at the Alpha males in the pack over a kill of a prey even though there is next to no chance of them getting a piece of the meat. They feel empowered by the strength of the group they feel that they are nothing outside of the leaders gang. In reality it is not even that complicated editors of newspapers and TV news producers hold back on hitting the admin hard out of fearing their own wives wrath. What is she going to say when their names are struck off the White House dinner-events guest lists. This goes back to JFK and the whole B.S myth of Camelot. Every editor's wife wanted to hang out with Jackie so JFK dirty foreign policy was censored all the way. These people want to belong to a quasi-aristocratic cultural elite. They may host the July 4th celebrations for the masses but privately they longed to be European Royalty from the 17th Century. Thats the Media class.

The Political class are more a mirror of the top-down ass-lickin' that is the structual
design of corporate capitalism. Plus of course they still work for the conglomerate sector
even when they are meant to be in public service. From campaign financing, to the cult of D.C lobbyist culture to the ultimate venue of big money for no real effort Pentagon contracts... American politicians have ALL the incentive NOT to challenge power not to side with ordinary people but rather their masters who own their careers. The false notion that such relationships are natural or based on legitimate ends is in turn cemented by the media who are part of the same system or least owned by the same system.

The United States is the ONLY Western country where television was introduced without a
public service broadcaster as a cornerstone for quality and democratic discourse. From day
one it was presumed and accepted by both Rep and De

GUNRUNNER

Saturday, October 22, 2005 4:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:
Furthermore in the American system non of the cabinet needs to be elected the entire cabinet can be drawn from people who have never stood for election... In the British and Canadian systems for example every member of the Cabinet is elected by a local constituency...

You are partially incorrect the President does select each cabinet member however the US Senate, which acts as the voice of the people, must confirm them. It’s not that different from how the Presidency its self is decided in reality.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

HOWARD

Saturday, October 22, 2005 4:51 AM

In theory you are right. But the vested
interests and the professional incest makes
confirmations to cabinet or supreme court,
mere TV show window dressing.

In theory you are right. But the corrupt culture
cancels it all out.

However the difference in cabinets is still
correct in what I say. There is no direct
democratic credentials of cabinet members in
the US executive branch in the way that in
the UK or Canada a member of cabinet in a
minister position has to be an MP elected by
the people in the town or area they represent.

A Senate confirmation is not the same as
having cabinet ministers forced to be MP's which
demands election directly by voters.

The US system makes no such obligation.

The sad truth is that the cancer of corporatist
culture and the wishie-washie technicrat persona
of today's gutless politicians has rendered
these differences rather academic. The triumph
of the Reaganites and of Thatcher was to cancel
out contrary ideology in domestic politics and
make ministers into a mere extension of the
culture and interests of the corporate board
room.

JUBELLATE

Saturday, October 22, 2005 5:09 AM

Nice theory, but I'm calling bullshit.

I'm sorry, but US politics is not some aberration of government gone wrong, but the inevitable result of pure democracy.

First, ok, I'll buy insulation. Bush is the model of insulation, a clueless oaf who plays a wonderful folksy man when courting voters and is an absolute novice beaurocrat. One thing he's done to further insulate himself is to shun to identify and ignore the reporters that ask him tough questions. This is self imposed, not a result of the position.

Next, the cabinet in the end is not responsible to talking to the public, but the Senate can subpeona any member to answer questions before the Senate, as they did with Condaleeza Rice. In the end, the president is the one that has to explain the rationalizations presented by his advisors to Congress. That the advisors also head various beaurocracies is unfortunate, but it takes alot of strength to bend certain beaurocracies to your will, so I'd say the advisors can't wholly control the direction of the departments they head. And as far as promoting more layers of insulation, its the nature that the president will listen to those who support him, regardless of whether they have an official capacity or not, so depriving the president a malleable cabinet is not a sure way to promote an effective presidency.

Ok, on to the media. As I've mentioned earlier, the media has to pay to play, and that payment is subtlety and softballing. Everyone's got to make their story and get their quote, so they play by the rules set down by the administration. And in this administration, hardballing the president will get you blacklisted from getting quotes. I'm sure theres plenty of studious journalists that want to trip up the president, but they're not gonna get their soundbyte so you just don't see it. Saying that they're cooing at the possibility of being close to power is to demean many respectable and frustrated journalists and is an unfair comparison.

As for the Democrats, its not a lack of will, but a lack of cogent ideas that leaves them constantly waffling. Unlike the republicans, which have consolidated and polarized their base, the Democrats can't seem to find a position that will satisfy their diversified interests and that leaves them with no argument to counter republicans except the idea the everything republicans want is against the interests of the democrats. This standoffish position is all they have and is a result of the bipolarness of the two party system, not some elite conspiracy determined to crush the paycheckers and meet all their goals of wild success.

Ok, onto PBS. TV is a whorehouse. I don't know how the BBC manages to promote rational discourse, but they are the exception in the world, not the rule. Because of the regulations associated with the distribution of frequencies and cost associated with promoting visual entertainment, TV will always be in the pocket of those with the most money. And most public stations in the majority of countries are farcical mimickry of governmental policies. Regulation and expense have killed the quality of the medium, but let's not assume that this is some grand conspiracy.

Ok, your last point seems to be that Congress in the US is a sheep to catchwords. Let's not mistake responsiveness to public opinion as a meekness to oppose the presidency. Every politician keeps an eye on how his consituents feel and frankly the vote to war was a response to constituaent demand. If anything, its the people of the US (the slight majority that gave this president power) that are to blame for our improper war. At the time, there was a general fear, stirred up by actual and imagined terrorism, that gave the president the support he needed to ask to declare war. Congress responded to this support by approving the President's request to go to war. But don't think for a minute that it was 77 senators courting favor with administration that led to this vote.

Basically I see that your entire argument is a veiled ad hominem on big business and elitism

HOWARD

Saturday, October 22, 2005 5:27 AM

For whom has American Democracy been pure?
Other than pure in the fascist sense.

For most of American history American-Indians,
Afro-Americans and Women had NO VOTE!

For the first 100 years of the USA only
White, Male, Protestant land/property owners
had the right to vote and the right to run.

Some pure democracy.

As for the notion that members of Congress are
merely responding to public demand. Well where
does that demand come from and what is it based
upon? Grotesque disinformation in the corporate
mass media that manufactures popular consent
and demand for appalling actions.

The majority of FOX NEWS viewiers still believe
that Saddam ordered 9/11!!

This is the incest of a single imperial class.
The media barons use their television channels
etc to brainwash the populace. So to germinate
reactionary inclinations among the people so
to provide a cover for the cowards in Congress.

John Kerry voted for the war not because there
were no alternative available ideas or
information. He voted for the war because he
is a loyal servant to the empire and wanted
to show his class based loyalty to the commander
in chief. While keeping his corporate lobbyists
well satisfied.

JUBELLATE

Saturday, October 22, 2005 5:42 AM

Oh, so now we're bringing in history along with current events.

I forgot that every other country has always allowed women and minorities to vote. How silly of me.

The people that believe Fox News want to believe Fox News, they're searching for reinforcement of their beliefs and would do so regardless. You can't force those that don't want top think for themselves to think. But, thats applicable to citizens of every country and hardly a uniquely American trait.

Public opinion providing a cover for elected officials decisions, what a horrible idea. Surely public officials should ignore the ignorant populace and base their decisions on their own righteous views. That would obviously make a better government.

John Kerry is an individual and as I do not know the man and nor, I think, do you, its hardly fair to throw and generalization on why he voted without some sort of factual basis.

Once again, you insist that everything that is wrong could be boiled down to two purpotrators, elitism and herding. I will continue to contend that this view is simplistic and wrong.

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H.L. Mencken

HOWARD

Saturday, October 22, 2005 6:28 AM

Yes I am firmly convinced that the primary
mindset of the imperial class is contempt
for the people. The evidence backs-up my
view. Decades of it! Contempt that you
seemingly share.

It is interesting how you describe those
denied the vote for generations as minorities
when in fact they amounted to a majority. It is
interesting how you view a rich minority as the
majority.

You are evading so many of my key points
and making misrepresented light of my other
points that I have not the inclination to
respond to you anymore. It is pointless.

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE