Politics
Out of context: Reply #7295
- Started
- Last post
- 33,772 Responses
- TheBlueOne0
"protests against the Iraq war received large amounts of media coverage."
On what planet? On what planet did a news station spend hour after hour interviewing Anti-Iraq War proponents to get their side of the story? I seem to remember a one to two minute mention and then onto the local weather. It's simply not comparable to the coverage of the Tea Parties via Fox.
To reiterate, I'm not saying that their are some sort of legitimate beef at the center of the Tea Party thing, nor am I saying that their isn't some real grass roots folks out there, what I'm saying is that a) there aren't enough people involved in it to warrant the coverage it got and b) it was clearly co-opted by the rightwing propaganda arm.
And don't take my insistence on this as to preclude the idea that the left doesn't do this as well, because it does it with certainty. Although, and this is me going out on a hunch, because those on the right tend to psychologically be more attuned and comfortable to top-down structures, their propaganda seems to reflect that mode. Makes it easier to spot sometimes. Where the left propaganda tends to be more amorphous.
I've been reading a bit of Randolph Bourne lately (I know "who?"). Early 20th century political intellectual who's main idea was that the two parties are in collusion with each other to a large extent. Sure they via for power between them, but both really only offer the barest of alternatives and the ones outside that system (aiming for a corporate-military strategy) just don't get heard. So, the system went after Kennedy when he went against the military ultimately and opened back channels to Castro and Krushev looking for a peace strategy, the dems undermined Carter's presidency when he was trying to buck the system, etc. Even Reagan went a bit off the reservation with his talks with Gorbachev...you can see Bush 2.0 as a Reagan/Bush 1 do-over where you had the same cast of characters (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc..) saying, this time, we do it right, we don't "talk to the enemy, we shock and awe them first.").
Anyway, I like Obama as a symbol. As an actual president, I don't expect much. He seems to already be playing to the benefit system, not alot of truly fundamental change going on, just a new coat of paint. But he is a symbol, and might be symbolic of a sea change in the feelings of the American populace at large. As a symbol he might be at the spearhead of a more community centered, pro-active and participatory citizenry, even if the man himself doesn't fulfill those promises. One can hope that a tide is being unleashed to whit those who seek to master it (via co-opting tea parties and anger at the monetary policy on the right or insisting that Obama is truly going to "change" the government on the left) cannot contain it. I hope, but don't expect it. We will see.
For more on Randolph Bourne:
http://www.bigeye.com/rbourne.ht…
http://www.disabilityhistory.org…
http://www.bigeye.com/warstate.h…Not saying this in any way encompasses my thinking on this stuff, just an interesting new angle I have discovered.
Out.