Letters to the Editor
William Timberman
Published Letters: 3298 Editor's Choice: 7
-
A question
[Read the article: Anatomy of Beltway conventional wisdom]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To me, there is something in these threads which always seems about to surface, but never quite does; something which I was trying to pick at yesterday when adnoto complained that I was confusing the issue. That something is the nature and function of propaganda in the United States, which doesn't seem to me to be as easily characterized as most liberals think.
Sayin so won't make the folks who like simplicity very happy, but then I've never been happy myself with formulations like It's all about the money, or it's all about the oil, or it's all about fear, loathing and power. Certainly at times it seems it might be all about any of the above, but I personally believe that it's all about all of the above, and that what is instructive is how the interactions between these motives have created, in the GWB era, what amounts to the perfect storm of self-delusion and mendacity.
Let me pose a question: Does the propaganda generated by James Dobson and the so-called social conservatives have anything in common with that generated by Dick Cheney and the neocons? It seems to me that it doesn't; the agendas driving the propaganda from these two sources is radically different, and at some points completely incompatible. What welds them together into a grand political ideology is the electoral strategy of Karl Rove and his fellow Republican strategists.
I would argue that the resultant welds are weak, and that if we want to change public policy in the U.S., we should attack them, rather than confronting the ideologies themselves head-on. To put it another way, right-wing propaganda in this country comes from multiple, sometimes competing sources. What liberal critics describe as The Mighty Wurlitzer only appears to be singing a single tune. In fact, it's a cacaphony, and a vulnerable one at that.
Beyond that, however -- perhaps above it -- is the issue of propaganda itself. It would be nice if we could present a chart which showed the long-term social cost of lying, but no such chart exists. What does exist, at least for me, is the suspicion is that ever since the fascists and communists became famous for discovering the short-term utility of lying, lying itself has been massively oversold.
One of those truisms which, sadly, happens to be true is that lying breeds cynicism, and that cynicism breeds not only irony in the well-placed, but also apathy in the not-so-well-placed. The Soviet Union was famous for its dark humor; with phenomena like the Comedy Show the U.S. is fast becoming its equal. Folks like Glenn insist, sometimes quite heroically, that accepting this turn of events is defeatism, but at this point, I suspect that few are listening. The signs are hopeful, but the battle is still not joined on its true ground, and it's not clear either that it will be, or if it is, how it will go.
To sum up, what we don't have in this country -- in my opinion, at least -- is a single ideology which rules all the actions of our government and major institutions, and a single, coherent propaganda mechanism backed openly by force which ensures that the ruling ideology has no competition. What we do have, at least at the top, is a series of interlocking interest groups which act as though they believe that when the truth is against them, a lie can see them through.
Below them, we've created a confederacy of dunces -- the chattering classes, and the right-wing blowhards -- who've found their bliss in servicing this or that interest group. It's a democracy of lies, if you will, characterized by shifting alliances, betrayals, misunderstandings, etc. -- all of which play out while the rest of us are supposed to be content to lie on our couches, punching the buttons on the TV remote, and wondering who really did father Anna Nicole's baby.
This isn't going to end well, I fear, until and unless those who want to accomplish something find it in themselves to resist the seductive weaponry of lies great and small which everyone has in his armory, and rely instead on what the truth will do for them.
-
Thanks, Brian
[Read the article: Anatomy of Beltway conventional wisdom]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]psst…I think you meant Comedy Central’s The Daily Show -- Brian Hayward
I did indeed, and thanks. Always google before you write. Never rely on your memory. Professionals have fact-checkers, amateurs have to rely on not so eternal vigilance.
The High-RWA mindset has accepted Dobson et al as their leadership. That Dobson is a double-high along with Cheney and the neo-cons (who are not double-high, just high social dominators) they have a faustian bargain and even though they likely despise each other, they find each other very useful. -- scientician
Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments. Yes, they have psychological similarities, and at times a common agenda. In my view, though, it's a marriage of convenience, nothing more. Perhaps Cheney's gay daughter isn't the wedge which could be driven between them -- even if it were legitimate to do so -- but there are others. At some point, for example, the industrial part of the military industrial complex might well come into conflict with Dobson's war on science, and his distaste for immigrants. Perhaps we could hasten it along a little. Can you say H-1B visa?
-
Tiberius?
[Read the article: Our benevolent surveillance state]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I would have thought Nero, or Caligula.