Guest Editorial by Kenneth Anderson
Endlessly mundane and always uninformative, the moribund struggle for party nominations in what we so disrespectfully still call the “presidential campaign” inhabit a realm of such vacuous inanity one can palpably sense malignant tumors of ennui forming within.
While would-be Republican candidates spar for the GOP nomination by appealing to brain stem functions (that is, when they’re not extolling us with tales of their heavenly devotion), Democrats carry themselves at only a marginally elevated level. This is not to say that there are not candidates — on both sides — who would like to raise the bar and address actual issues and policy, but those are shunned by our craven and cack-handed media mavens, who never seem to tire of their perceived role as king-maker in what has become — for the world’s “greatest democracy” — an embarrassing spectacle of the most base and primitive dimensions. I suspect if media moguls could get Romney and Huckabee to square off in a cage fight, well, that would be next on the tour of the candidates. Who needs all this talk? Though the American public demand campaigns of substance, there appears too little of that on the political horizon, while furry idiots like Wolf Blitzer express puzzlement at the term “triangulating” as it pertains to Hillary Clinton.
What we constantly hear from the corporate media, though it is never stated quite so bluntly, is that those with the money become the kings. The American political campaign system is now a big-money bonanza for media corporations. These corporations prop up candidates with the most money knowing full well that that money will come straight back to them in the form of campaign advertising. The media are now simply advertisers for the biggest political spenders, which is perhaps the reason why the campaign cycle is now virtually continuous. It is a positive feedback loop, reinforcing in the minds of the public that the only viable candidates are the ones with the money, the polls reflect this, more money pours in for those “viable candidates,” which in turn cycles right back to the media money machine.
Which is why I am constantly amazed that the so-called “progressive” blogs have chosen to endorse corporate-backed candidates like Hillary Clinton.
Though Dennis Kucinich espouses ideals resonant with most liberal voters, he is as marginalized by progressives as much as the mainstream media as “unelectable,” though no one ever seems to understand or explain exactly what that means. Is it his ears?
By all appearances, blogs such as dKos, MyDD, etc, have now simply become another arm of the Democratic party and their backing of the major, big-money candidates simply because they are deemed “electable” entirely betrays the original purpose of their fora.
The purposefully constrained political party system has, indeed, forced liberals into only one corner. Liberals certainly will not vote for Republicans today. Bush has fairly destroyed any vestige of that odd creature once known as the “Reagan Democrat” and the “major” Republican candidates seem interested in being more Bush than Bush. No, progressives have been forced into seeing the Democratic Party as their only choice and, as the performance of Democratic-led House and Senate have amply demonstrated after over a year in the majority, that choice is a damn poor one.
Nonetheless, “progressives” are unwavering in their desire for a Democrat to gain the White House, which they believe will lead to some kind of correction of our horribly misbegotten ways. But I wonder if they do not find it the slightest bit disconcerting that the leading Democratic candidate is — by far — the biggest recipient of defense industry cash. Do these progressives not see the future in the sign that the health care industry is also backing Clinton above all others? (free subscription req.)
What does this tell us about the possibility of Democrats repealing the military misadventures or providing universal health care that is not simply a tax-payer sop to the “health care” industry? Does Kos believe that Clinton is, perhaps, a progressive sleeper agent, that once having soaked up those corporate dollars, she will spring into progressive action, stop the war, withdraw the troops, reinstate habeas corpus, halt the spying, hold the telecoms accountable, and send up those venal HMO corporations?
It was obvious after the 2004 election that Daily Kos creator, Markos “kos” Zuniga was more afraid of the establishment than he would have people believe when he unilaterally declared that reports of election fraud would be stricken from his site. Despite years of evidence now gathered, despite the volumes published, despite expert opinion and analysis, kos’ position has not wavered on this, despite daily reports of Republican-led election shenanigans across the country, with only the latest (and most benign) being the Romney campaign’s corruption of a Florida GOP straw poll.
In this regard, he is acting like the Democratic party, too afraid to bear mention that some things have been terribly amiss in recent American elections. If the U.S. Attorney purge scandal, uncovered and now largely forgotten, should have demonstrated one thing to the Democrats, it is that the Republicans, as led by Rove, have utterly hijacked the apparatus of government in service of the GOP. Today, a Democrat sits in prison because of these activities, and yet, from the Democrats, not a word. And neither is there one from those so-called progressives like kos.
One can construct two possible scenarios from the evidence of the corporate largesse directed toward Clinton. One, influential industries really do place their faith in Clinton that she will continue to deliver that which they so desire, and two, that these industries and others backing her are setting her up for a fall at the hands of a corporate media that is well-schooled in the art of Clinton-bashing, in which case the Republican nominee takes the White House.
The latter is hopelessly convoluted and, despite Republican/corporate control of the electoral system, the outcome is not guaranteed. More likely, of course, is that Clinton has simply been bought off and nothing in her performance to date would dispel that. The added bonus of this, obviously, is that she has to deal with Iraq and can be blamed for that as needed. And despite American public insistence that we leave Iraq, Clinton has more than endorsed our continued (albeit reduced) presence there, as have the other “major” Democratic candidates.
This reality is something for which progressives can only blame themselves, by ignoring the candidates who promise withdrawal and choosing to vote for someone more “electable.”
===
Kenneth Anderson is a former blogger at “Anything They Say,”, a freelance writer, contributor to OpEd News and author of articles published by The Humanist magazine.
Excellent analysis. I’ve noticed the same thing. When MyDD said they would allocate space on the front page each day for posts about a specific candidate they included only Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson and (for some reason) Dodd. I asked why not Kucinich but got no reply.
Kind of off-topic but I’ve also noticed that many polls don’t list Kucinich or Gravel as candidate choices. When the results include as much as 8% Other and when the lowest of the listed candidates are polling at below 5%, I have to wonder if Kucinich had 8% in that poll…who knows?
GMFORD,
Thanks. This same effect has been seen on the Republican side, especially as it pertains to Ron Paul. There was a particular incident where Paul has been said to have topped various straw polls and post-debate polls only to have been completely ignored by media hacks.
Circular logic is often employed by the mainstream media. Low poll numbers insist that little attention is paid, which guarantees that many do not hear these candidates, which in turn further guarantees … low poll numbers. It’s great system for setting up the “horse race” for those candidates desired and excluding the ones undesired.
I’ve been saying for YEARS that there is but one party, the CORPORATE party, with two teams, a red and a blue team.
This problem is embedded all through our system of elections from the State level to the Federal; specifically, the problem is that the laws and regulations set up regarding elections are completely biased towards a two party system; it will be interesting to see how Nader’s lawsuit(s) against the Dem Party turns out.
And now we are well on the way to a fascist state (see ‘End of America’ by Naomi Wolf) while the populace is entertained by twaddle posing as dialogue.
And when someone like Gravel calls for an end to the so-called ‘war on drugs’ (which has only served to ruin peoples lives and create a ‘prison industry’) or states the obvious that the 50,000+ U.S. soldiers who died in Vietnam had their lives wasted(not to mention all the other issues associated), he is completely ignored and the other candidates speechless regards Gravel’s statements.
Until the idea codified by the Supreme Court that ‘money equals speech’ and third parties are enabled, it will continue to be sosad(same old shit, another day).
Indeed. With SCOTUS backing the “money = speech” paradigm, lovingly embraced by conservative hacks like George Will who never acknowledge the ills of this “philosophy,” the lobbying industry and corporate contributions have only accelerated, rendering any candidate not coddled by corporate America floundering in the backwaters of American politics. These would be the same candidates who demand that government serve the public interest.
I recommend Michael Collins three part series, The Money Party.
A form of nationalism embedded in pablum playing chicken as to the destruction of the planet.
The White House West of the Pecos where
Judge Roy L. Beanpreznit blush is “thuh law fer amukans” because he got elect’d gooder than goober did.Again, you have delivered an accurate and fair evaluation of the government who affectionately calls us its constituents, voters, and people- yet embraces us as none of these. I applaud your exactitude, and can only hope that the persistence of understanding will someday percolate and dethrone the corporatacracy we have come to fear and accept as law, for the people by the people.
dt
Good job, Ken. I read this the first time on BoneheadCompendium.com. You’re absolutely right about “unelectable” being a euphemism for “big capital won’t fund them.” I hadn’t heard the criticism of Markos Zuniga before.
Michael
I can tell you that I will not read another US blog if Hillary Clinton is elected. To me that will be my cut off with the USA. (Not that egotistical to that I think anyone really cares what a Canadian thinks but it will be the last straw for me.)
I have seen this negating of what Kucinich has to say, refusing to even put his picture up when there have been Democratic debates, on many supposedly progressive sites and it annoys me to no end.
I will always support Brad (sorry it can’t be financially at the moment) because to me he has done more for the bottom line problem, election fraud, than any other blogger out there. Bless his little heart.
Bless Brad’s Big heart I mean 🙂
GWN –
You won’t even read BRAD BLOG if Hillary is elected?! 🙁
Or do we no longer count as a “US blog”?
If the excrement that spews forth from the corporate broadcast satellites, cables, magnetron tubes, lcd’s and plasma screens was shut off, and people actually had to read about each candidate, and make decisions using their own brain, or force their way in to ask questions, this race would be between Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.
But that ain’t going to happen. Money has corrupted it all. The sheep are going to eat that excrement Oprah Gail Winfrey style (she’s sold out corporate too), I wonder how many of those poop eating sheep know what the Barak campaign did to a myspace user early on? I ain’ t saying Barak is all bad, but I don’t plan to support him any time in the future, unless his campaign makes good with that original myspace user. And that ain’t going to happen either, it’s called dirty tricks, and dirty business.
What angers me the most is when “hard questions” that are put to the candidates. Suddenly the lack of answers, the evasion of the answers, the un-answers.
Hard questions are NOT EVER asked by corporate media. Nor are any SURPRISE questions
Meanwhile corporate media has nothing but same old soft questions, let’s talk about how god is going to fix the election process, or how gays are going to get us out of iraq. Flipped the channel already, how about how is pro-life going to fix the crashing dollar from becoming worthless while the Amero is rolled out, or maybe how gun banning is going to put an end to net neutrality is more to your taste.
I say it all comes down to what flavor of poop the sheep willing to eat.
If a candidate or president really cared about obesity, there would be no more HFCS, or the other crap that is put into food.
I absolutely agree with the article above. It’s very similar to why oil is almost $100 a barrel. It ain’t got nothing to do with these wars or peak oil, it’s cause people are bidding the price up. Wall street would LOVE it if it hit $100, it would be a benchmark then it could go higher from there.
OT: By the way, I don’t buy this peak-oil crap, just the same as most of those that do buy the peak oil crap, don’t buy my using water as fuel crap. I don’t like OIL as a fuel, It pollutes bad. Instead (for those that will listen and physically try) you can burn water, and you don’t need to store it in tanks like the electrolysis method. You burn the steam with plasma. Reconnect the water dripping exhaust pipe back to the water tank and you have something that will go hundreds of miles on one gallon of water.
If you want to stop eating poop, and become more than human it’s time to open your eyes. Each of us has the power to become a GOD, regardless of race or gender.
Clinton is a
neoCondemoCon.Brad # 10, You are going to move to Vancouver BC , close to Diebold’s office so that you can keep an eye on them when they start @#$%% with our election system 🙂
Edwards/Kucinich…unbeatable
A strong environmental stand and anti-corruption platform, as well as open government commitments, and re-opening 911 investigation promises will destroy the competition. Capturing independants, far lefties, and far righties, not to mention ALL dems, and disgusted repubs.
Edwards good looks and awesome hair, and Kucinichs hot wife. Yowza.
Set Edwards on attack of the corruption (number one voter concern in 2006), and Kucinich with his common sense approach to addressing the environment and energy issues, and watch the masses flock to them. Department of Peace is a winner. The Earth can’t take no-mo wars.
There good people.
“…Joe Biden is now the third best bet for the nomination. I’m hearing a lot of buzz about him from people who pay attention.”
– Chris Matthews, MSNBC (12/10/07)
The Biden for President Campaign would like YOU to go to IOWA. This once-in-a-lifetime opportunity would allow you to see a caucus and presidential campaign first-hand in the earliest voting state. We need your help, so please join us as we strive to get Senator Biden elected the next PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Dates: Anytime between December 14, 2007 – January 4th, 2008
Accommodations: Provided by the campaign. (Contact for more details)
Please join us for this INCREDIBLE opportunity. If you would like to find out more information, please e-mail our campaign: Becky McAndrews at Becky@joebiden.com or Josh Kagan at Joshua@joebiden.com with the subject line: IOWA. You may also call the campaign at (302) 574-2008!
Thank you and we hope to see you out in IOWA!
– The Biden for President Team
Hey Vman has Edwards gotten “all options” off the table yet where Iran is concerned when speaking to the Israeli’s?
What a bunch of hot air.
Kenneth Anderson is about as perceptive as a rock.
Oh, and Kenneth, maybe you should work a little on your subject-verb agreement so that English-speaking people can better understand what you’re trying to say.
A Kossack visiting Bradblog perhaps? You’ll be voting for Hillary, then? Please, enlighten this crowd with some stellar verbiage on the marvelous content of presidential campaign speeches/debates and the in-depth media coverage thereof.
As far as subject-verb agreement, perhaps you could provide an example that offends. Perhaps, you think the word “media” is singular. Or perhaps you are unaware that group nouns can be referred in the plural, the “English” idiom.