As Avedon notes, everyone is talking about Peter Daou’s post yesterday. An excerpt:
What’s the common thread running through the past half-decade of Bush’s presidency? What’s the nexus between the Swift-boating of Kerry, the Swift-boating of Murtha, and the guilt-by-association between Democrats and terrorists? Why has a seemingly endless string of administration scandals faded into oblivion? Why do Democrats keep losing elections? It’s this: the traditional media, the trusted media, the “neutral” media, have become the chief delivery mechanism of potent anti-Democratic and pro-Bush storylines. And the Democratic establishment appears to be either ignorant of this political quandary or unwilling to fight it.There’s a critical distinction to be made here: individual reporters may lean left, isolated news stories may be slanted against the administration. What I’m describing is the wholesale peddling by the “neutral” press of deep-seated narratives, memes, and soundbites: simple, targeted talking points that paint a picture of reality for the American public that favors the right and tarnishes the left.
You’ve heard the narratives: Bush is likable, Bush is a regular guy, Bush is firm, Bush is a religious man, Bush relishes a fight, Democrats are muddled, Democrats have no message, national security is Bush’s strength, terror attacks and terror threats help Bush (even though he presided over the worst attack ever on American soil), Democrats are weak on security, Democrats need to learn how to talk about values, Republicans favor a “strict interpretation” of the Constitution, and on and on.
Read it all.
Yours truly has been writing about this issue for awhile. So has Dave Johnson over at See the Forest.
It is of great importance that those of us with this insight help to make others aware of this issue. Liberals are being shut out of the political process. For all the lip service given to “we must maintain a two party system”, the facts and actions speak louder.
Avedon puts it best:
And so we now find ourselves in a position where a president who has all but promised to incinerate the Constitution can do so with relative impunity, while the installation of a clearly partisan supporter – indeed, creator – of the “legal” theory that rationalizes that treason – is about to ascend to the Supreme Court with the acquiescence of the so-called opposition party. [...]The question of whether the Democratic leadership actually has any desire to promote the views and the people they supposedly represent is asked more and more often these days, but they seem to be easy prey for the process I wrote about in How you became crazy – barraged with the Beltway-insider point of view, with little buffering from the sane point of view, they probably doubt themselves more than a little even when they do want to do the right thing.
This might have a great deal to do with why the only high-profile Democrat who has been willing to lead on important progressive issues is Al Gore, a guy who has not been so embedded lately in that sinkhole. Maybe it’s even why governors have made more popular nominees than Senators – because they spend a lot less time in Washington.
But if you doubt the need to write those letters, make those phone calls, send those faxes, think again. No matter how much the media mouthpieces complain about the nasty little lefties and their nasty little letters, the fact is that when many, many people are saying something, it makes a difference in what those media jerks think it is acceptable to say on television and in the pages of The Washington Post. Remember: The ultra-conservatives they listen to today are the same people they once regarded as the right-wing fringe nuts they really are. But the nuts made themselves heard. We have to do the same until it is no longer “crazy” or “partisan” to tell the truth.
Nuff said.
