Many times during George W. Bush’s first term in office, I imagined how different things might have been had Al Gore been inaugurated as president. The closeness of the election made this a tempting exercise. Similarly, at times lately I’ve wondered what things would be like if Hillary Clinton had beaten Obama for the Democratic nomination — which she came close to doing — and then, presumably, won the presidency.
The Republicans are winning the message war over the stimulus plan right now — or at least they sure seem to be getting much more coverage than the Democrats. Would this be happening if Hillary were president? She knows how to play hardball politics against the Republicans. There’s no telling if things would be different right now. Maybe they’d be better, maybe they’d be worse. But I’m unhappy with the way things are going, so once again, it’s tempting to hypothesize an alternate universe.
One thing I take heart in is that Obama seems adaptable. He has an op-ed in today’s Washington Post, and although nobody reads newspapers anymore, it’s at least something. I also saw that he’s considering a prime-time Oval Office address.
Maybe he should have taken more control over the bill from the start? It’s not really his bill right now — he let the congressional Democrats draft it, which, as this piece points out, might have seemed like a good idea at the time, since Congress needs to pass the bill in order for it to land on Obama’s desk. But it seems “much more like an omnibus bill than a stimulus bill,” according to Susan Collins, with tons of little things for Republicans to attack. Maybe it should have focused on just a few big things instead of some big things and lots of little things. The way things stand, it’s Congress’s bill, but the media will blame Obama if it tanks.
But it probably won’t tank. Some sort of bill will eventually pass. Legislating is a messy process, and hopefully this will lead to something that can get enough votes to overcome a potential filibuster. (By the way, it would be nice if the spineless Harry Reid would actually make the Republicans filibuster for once instead of just letting them say they will. Make them get up there and read the phone book or the complete works of Charles Dickens! Eventually they’ll have to fold.)
It’s weird — when Bush had 30% approval ratings, he could still get what he wanted. Obama, with 65% approval, is coming off as weak. The common factor? Unyielding Republicans and feckless Democrats.
Hopefully this has been a good lesson for Obama: you can’t win over Republicans. You can only beat them or lose to them. The modern-day Republican Party is not a normal political party. Instead, it’s a religious party: tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. Could you convince fundamentalist Christians to support gay marriage or believe in evolution by inviting them to a Superbowl party? No. So why would it work on Republicans? They’ll just say, “Thank you so much for inviting us to your party! You’re such a great guy! Now give us our tax cuts.”
Obama is thoughtful and pays attention to criticism. Thoughtfulness can make you weak in politics. But he seems to be good at learning from mistakes — so I still have hope.
Republicans always get more coverage in the corporate media. It’s an intentional policy of the owners of those media outlets.
On a more pleasant note: Iceland now has the world’s first openly queer head of state.
I really wish that Democrats would refer to the media as the “right-wing corporate media” as often as the Republicans refer to them as the “liberal media.” Neither is wholly accurate, but the media is so insecure that they can be easily played.
Also, much harder to get away with that when every survey indicates that 80-90% of newspaper reporters and employees in general are Democrats. Labeling the writers/reporters of the content is a lot more effective than labeling the owners.
The media unilaterally supports the preservation of capitalist ownership relations and in fact exist for no purpose other than the private appropriation of wealth. For that reason, the media cannot possibly be “liberal” in any real meaningful sense.
I honestly don’t understand why anyone would think the Democrats are “liberal.”
Oops. I meant “universally,” not “unilaterally.”
“The media… exist for no purpose other than the private appropriation of wealth.” For no other purpose? None at all? You have got to be kidding. Sorry, I’m one of those people who happen to believe that human beings are not driven solely by economics.
So, what, you think the corporate media lives to serve the community by providing us with valuable news and information and undertaking hard-hitting investigative journalism to champion the common man, speak truth to power, and make the world a better place?
That’s your prerogative. I just haven’t seen any evidence of it. Instead, I see propaganda intended either to brainwash into accepting the line of the ruling elite, or to keep us distracted, entertained, and sedated so we don’t see what’s really going on. That’s one reason the MSM hates the blogosphere, for one thing, and why the corporations are consistently trying to control the internet.
The way the world is these days, you can never be too cynical. One has to pretty much always assume the absolute worst in people until you see evidence to the contrary. To do otherwise is to open yourself up to get raped, figuratives and perhaps even literally.
Well, I think the world is not so black and white as you paint it, and that people’s motivations are complex, and that there is no one right way of looking at the world or the people in it.
There is no singular entity called “the corporate media.” There are individuals who work for media companies. In fact, there are 6 billion discrete individuals on this planet, none of whose minds you can presume to read.
Yes, the world is complex, and yes there are many different perspectives on any given issue. But the existence of perspective does not invalidate another perspective; rather — unless they are deliberately falsified — they are both true from their respective POVs.
The world is made of a kaleidoscopoe of contradictory and complementary forces and drives and interests. That diversity, however, doesn’t change the fact that in general the most significant and influential forces are those of material self-interest. Does that mean everyone is out for their own material gain above anything else? No, but many people — consciously or (more importantly) unconsciously are, and the larger the group of people the more apparent this becomes.
You are right, in one sense, that there is no such entity as “the corporate media” but rather there are individuals that work for media companies. On that level of analysis, there is also no such thing a nations, ethnicities, religions, or professions. These are all social relations that connect individuals to one another and direct their actions and their interests. At a higher and more abstract level of analysis, the individual fades out of focus and becomes merely a node in networks of relations and the larger structures within that network — like media companies and the media industry itself — become entities and subjects of study. Compare with how radically different physics is on the quantum, human, and galactic levels.
When when you get right down to it. we’re just animals and just as predictable as the other, less sapient species with whom we share this planet. If we are different from them in any appreciable way, it’s in our ability to delude ourselves into thinking we’re somehow different and superior. Above all else, we need to eat and drink and sleep and have shelter before we can have art and music and religion and philosophy and media companies, and those material considerations are always going to be of greater determinative force than the higher cultural forces that depend on them.
Finally, if you expect the best in people, you’ll be consistently disappointed. If you expect the worst, you may occasionally be plesantly surprised. :)
Or you could be zen about it and expect neither the best nor the worst, but just take things as they come.
Yeah, but that would the emotionally and spiritually healthy response, and we don’t want that! :)