I don’t know if America has a leadership problem; it certainly has a followership problem. Vast majorities of Americans don’t trust their institutions. That’s not mostly because our institutions perform much worse than they did in 1925 and 1955, when they were widely trusted. It’s mostly because more people are cynical and like to pretend that they are better than everything else around them. Vanity has more to do with rising distrust than anything else.
Which of these things is not like the other things?
1) Bush tax cuts 2) Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq 3) Deregulation 4) Social Security
Social Security is not a major contributor to our national debt of $14 trillion.
Social Security does not put money directly into the pockets of our society's wealthiest members.
So why are we talking about cutting this fourth thing, Social Security? It's simply more class warfare on behalf of the plutocrats. The people concern trolling about Social Security now have proven over the last few decades that they don't give a damn about the national debt or the accumulated annual deficits and interest on same that created it.
I'm ashamed of the President I voted for in 2008, he's on the wrong side of too many issues. We need a Democratic party that's an alternative to the Republican party, not its enabler.
But our national political parties, their sycophants in the media and on K-Street, and most importantly, the owners of all three groups are determined that the truth neither be seen, nor talked about.
I started watching Conan back when I lived in NYC. Hard to imagine watching Leno instead (I rarely turn the TV on here in Ohio, so it's sort of a mute/moot point). ~
Fred Hiatt has recently published op-eds from Dick Cheney warning us of the dangers of avoiding torture, John Bolton warning of the dangers of negotiating with foreign countries, and David J. Kramer warning of the dangers of discontinuing an expensive missile defense program that doesn't work.
A flier describing the events, which Ms. Weymouth said had been issued by the marketing department and had never been vetted by her, had promised corporate sponsors conversation ("Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No."). Sponsors were asked to pay $25,000 to attend an event, or underwrite a series of 11 for $250,000.
The July 21 event, focusing on health care reform, had "guaranteed" a "collegial evening" with health industry advocates, Post journalists covering the field and administration officials involved with its policies.
Just for the halibut, I've submitted my own question for Mr. Sleeper:
Hi Jim,
You say "Racism is only one of many factors driving the backlash against the president in town hall meetings and in demonstrations on Capitol Hill." You then mention the example of the swiftboaters.
Fish got to swim, birds got to fly, and Republicans scare seniors with lies about health care. Why do should we talk about these confused protesters at all? The corporate media happily ignored far larger protests against the war in Iraq. Not only were those anti-war protesters more focused, they were actually right on the facts.
Focusing on the astroturfing serves only the interests of the corporations that have a stake in the status quo. We ought to be talking about the fact that we spend more than any other country per capita on health care, yet are only 37th in terms of results. ~
Jim Sleeper: Well, here's the rub, as I feel it: On the one hand, you're right to say that we should pay more attention to the skilled demagoguery that gets at people's hurts and fears and riles them up. And there's little question in my mind that that's mainly what FOX News exists to do and what certain media personalities there and elsewhere love to do.
On the other hand, the hurts and fears are real. They pre-existed FOX and even the WW II media demagogue Father McCloughlin and, later, Senator Joe McCarthy. So we have to concentrate more on what makes people so vulnerable to the snake-oil salesmen in the first place. My column was an attempt to warn us not to focus on the symptoms (even though they're often deep and powerful) but on the even-deeper causes. The rabble-rousers actually arrive rather late in all this, I think.
It seems we are talking a bit at cross purposes here. I'm saying we should dismiss the astroturfing for what it is. We should take careful note of the importance that the Washington Post attaches to it, and examine how the paper is otherwise covering the healthcare debate.
I should clarify who the cobag tag refers to in my post: Fred Hiatt.
Jim Sleeper seems to be a decent guy.
Jim Sleeper: I'm not conservative (I'd like a single-payer, universal health care system, like Canada's!), and neither I nor other liberals had any role in the silence of the President of the United States.
Fred Hiatt, on the other hand, is as subtle and sharp as a sledgehammer. We don't see mention of the actual numbers that matter in the healthcare debate on the pages of the Washington Post. Or how other countries do it better. I've gotten more information about health care in other countries from my own comments section than I have from the WaPo.
This was my comment in response to Jim Sleeper's correction. But I suppose it should be above the fold, and such as. I don't think you can pull up this post and not see the comments, but here it is:
Thanks for stopping by with correction, Jim. I don't get the hard copy edition of the Post, and assumed that anything listed under Opinions fell into Hiatt's bailiwick.
I grew up in D.C. reading the Washington Post, and I find it immensely disappointing these days. Ultimately, responsibility for the paper goes to the publishers, Donald Graham and now Katharine Weymouth.
To add to this, I have probably tended to overstate Fred Hiatt's power at the Post. And he wouldn't be there doing his thing if the publishers didn't want him to.
And here's more Somerby: Less than half what we spend, despite the therapy—and the baby-sitters! Does anyone have any idea how that works? We read the Post and the Times every day. We’ve never seen the slightest attempt to work through this giant conundrum. ~
