Tweet
Could it be that the prospect of the present leaders of the GOP taking over the government is frightening even their longtime media enablers? I suspect that we have Glenn Beck, Lush Rimbaugh, Sarah Palin and their like to thank for recent tendencies in the media to tell some truths that have been squashed for several years previously. Just as I pointed out last Sunday, I see instances of members of the punditry suddenly refusing to let lies pass for facts.
Again today, there is a real event to celebrate. In the bastion of the opponents of public interest, the Wall Street Journal, an op-ed appears that calls for some kudos. Let me just quote the writer’s advice to President Obama to bring us back from the precipice.
A more daring course would be finally to confront the antigovernment catechism directly, to attack his opponents where they are strongest. For decades, conservatives have explained every episode of government failure by shrugging: What do you expect? That’s just the way government is. When government fails to do the job—even when it’s a government presided over by conservatives themselves—it automatically reinforces core assumptions of the right.
Although this explanation is hollow and a little bit poisonous…
…
…the toxic truth is staring us right in the face: The reason government has failed so spectacularly in our time is because it’s been run into the ground by antigovernment politicians. Government agencies failed because they were often turned over to industry lobbyists. Government regulators didn’t regulate because they were starved for resources. The government work force had no esprit de corps because it was constantly being insulted by its bureaucrat-denouncing bosses.
After reading that, I do believe I hear the Allelujah chorus belting forth from somewhere. Of course, the writer insists that this is totally unrecognized by the media, which shows he’s not a listener of Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, Amy Goodman, Jane Mayer and their like. But it’s good to know that even a dweller in the halls of the Wall Street Journal can see the facts beyond the bar of unrealities.
We are endangered as much as any of us have seen in our lives, and it’s scary to those who can see ruin approaching fast. As a result, IMHO, media personnel who normally would sell the usual old tired mantra of protecting business from the vulgar consumer are letting a bit of the truth out. As so recently proved by the economic meltdown, the main beneficiaries of this country’s prosperity are suffering from its destruction by right wing ideology.
More of the facts, please. We have quite enough lies from those who are willing to pitch the country down the drain for a few swigs at the trough.
10 Comments
This is a good sign, but sadly for every person like this that sees the light there seems to be 4 on the Right who don’t get it. WSJ is owned by Murdoch now, anyone want to bet this person winds up fired in the next couple of months?
If you were a mogul, and faced with having something like what’s leading the GOP right now, with your empire at their mercy, wouldn’t you panic? I expect we’re seeing that panic right now.
If Ruth Calvo hadn’t fallen off a turnip truck 15 minutes ago, she might know that the editorial which she quotes from the Wall Street Journal as evidence of an amazing turn-around in the punditocracy was actually written by Thomas Frank, the Journal’s token liberal, who has been writing the same sort of editorial month after month after month, while Ms. Calvo was apparently still romping around in some remote turnip-patch.
Charming. Actually, they’re rutabagas. But, yes, I am aware that Frank of KS – as in what’s the matter with – is a sort of tokenism like Eugene Robinson at WaPo. Yet am delighted to find him castigating right wing atrocities in the WSJ. Had you read the post, you might have noted that this is another of several instances I have seen of increasing distance between the corporate welfare addicts and their scary minions. But of course, with your incredible wisdom and discernment, no doubt you had realized this, and only wished to enlighten us lower forms of intelligence… *snort*.
This is inappropriate:
Make your points without the personal invective please.
Government is not the problem. Bad government is the problem. Neither is fiat money the problem. Debt money is the problem. Even if the people understood this the greater problem would remain. How to overthrow our corporate masters. Voting, we now know, does not help.
Ruth, the Murdoch business model involves manufacturing controversy. He doesn’t mind liberals as long as they are generally seen as weak and contemptible.
It’s fine–laudable– to be an optimist, but you haven’t sold me that your analysis is correct or, indeed, anything but wishful thinking.
Do not see how you can characterize Thomas Frank as weak and contemptible, and do not know why you think I should be ‘selling’ you either. I present ideas and facts that led me to them, you may use or not as you wish. If I were trying to ‘sell’ you something I would not be a blogger.
Did I say I watch/read Murdoch media? I did not. I do not see Frank as either weak or contemptible. You’ve raised a strawman.
What the “generally” refers to is with regard to FOX’s audience. The prototypical Murdoch liberal is Alan Colmes. He served as the foil to Hannity so that Hannity could look big and bluff and decisive by comparison. The fact that any sensible person would see Hannity as arrogant, intolerant, and dishonest didn’t matter. Most sensible people do not watch FOX.
As for selling, I think you understand that I am telling you that your argument is unpersuasive. I’m generally a good person to listen to on these matters. If you don’t care to hear that, it’s not a problem.
from your post; re Murdoch – “He doesn’t mind liberals as long as they are generally seen as weak and contemptible. ”
am not much up on Murdoch or Faux news readers, so just assume you know what you mean, and as the subject was WSJ op-ed writer Thomas Frank, do not see how you might mean anyone/anything else? as you say, not a problem, am not hearing whatever it was you meant.