It is the reason that campaign finance reform withers on the vine -- elites know that without the money to donate/bribe, people like AIPAC would get what Americans want. And that's not what AIPAC wants.

Rs, and more recently Ds, have come to terms with the fact that when it comes to direct policy, Americans really don't know stuff. But when it comes to the national character, and people's natural preferences, the only way to keep subverting it is to have a money machine that will feed liars the dough that they need to keep going, against the people's most basic wishes.

So, why don't we copy their tactic?

Start a huge media/blog explosion whenever a politician states a position which is counter to the position held by the majority?

Well-organized, highly vocal minorities can bully well-meaning but weak-minded majorities into doing foolish things.

Who knew?

...the very matters discussed in this post invariably give rise to, see:

http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/

"How to make the case for Israel- And Win!"

Or just give my name a little nudge. The post linked will give you all the ammunition you need, as if you need any not provided in Pangloss' Dictum!

You are probably right about the general establishment bias toward Israel, but polls are not necessarily giving the true picture of voter sentiment. To understand how people really feel about matters like this, poll questions about specific events and issues as well as questions about principle are required.

Of course people favor the principle that we should be even-handed. But ask questions like "Do you think that Isreal was right to respond to the Palestinian terrorist attack of XX/XX" and I think a different picture would emerge. Answers would probably differ according to wording: "respond" vs. "retaliate" or presence of "terrorist". Also answers would be conditioned by how the media have reported the issue or event. And again you are probably right about media bias in reporting, but this is a fact of life for politicians.

Politicians generally understand the difference between principles and specific issues and this is shown by their continuous spouting of meaningless platitudes, while their votes are carefully calibrated to likely voter response on specific issues. Pollsters may not be so discriminating.

Glenn, how has this happened? How have a few people managed to shift the policies of basically the entire media and political worlds so far to the right? And how could a few people shift them back?

Of course people favor the principle that we should be even-handed. But ask questions like "Do you think that Isreal was right to respond to the Palestinian terrorist attack of XX/XX" and I think a different picture would emerge. Answers would probably differ according to wording: "respond" vs. "retaliate" or presence of "terrorist".

You may be right about the distinction you're drawing (though some of the other questions about Israel - including whether it's doing it's part to solve the dispute - suggest that public opinion on this issue is more thoughtful than that -- i.e., that the principals match the specific views).

But what's striking here is that even the majority-held platitude of "even-handendness" can't be expressed. That's all Howard Dean did - he used the exact phrase most Americans embrace - and yet still got attacked (including by his own party) and had to frenzily backtrack.

Obama could never, ever come out and say that America should be "even-handed" towards Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians. The whole tenor of his AIPAC speech is to emphasize the contrary, and even the very mild deviations Obama expressed during the primary subjected him to real political trouble.

If "journalists" (present company and Amy Goodman excepted) actually reported these discrepancies more often, it might actually help. As it is, the criminals in the Congress and the White House (and let's face it: that's pretty much what they are at this point) support their cronies in the media business who in turn support them by inaccurate and/or lack of reporting on certain issues. And there aren't many real journalists left. The talking heads who think of themselves as journalists are patently not. You can't report the events with objective distance when you're only reporting what some higher up has told you to report, damn the facts at hand.

Unhappily, people are often easily led to believe something's true, even when there is sufficient evidence otherwise, if the media reports it to be so or reports the lies on a consistent basis. I've found it almost hilarious how Bush and his minions have reported constantly and consistently that the economy is FINE!! REALLY!! when we can see for ourselves that's it's falling apart around our ears. Now that that lie can no longer hold, they are saying NO! RECESSION! OR! DEPRESSION! REALLY! even as banks fail and they have to bail out a bunch of greedy lenders.

The worst part is the belief on the part of the political "elite" (ha! please, elite to what? Goats? Pigs? That would be an insult to goats and pigs) that they don't really need the public to achieve their goals. Obama is saying these things because he wants to please the people that give him or could give his opponent, lots of money. As politicians all do, with few exceptions.

The rot is deep. I'd love it if we really could just kick them all out and then somehow prevent these big money groups from buying their own personal politician, but I just don't see how it can be done.

will take place at a secret location near Sand Point.

Only demons question Likud's worldview......

Glenn, thanks again for an excellent article. Even if a reporter chose to comment on these issues, how long would he or she be employed in the M$M? ....and why?

Jimmy Carter could not have achieved the Camp David accords and peace between Egypt and Israel, but for convincing both sides he would an impartial and even handed mediator, respectful of both sides interests. Clinton had to display the same even handed approach, only committed to peace, to have gotten the Palestinians and Israelis as close as he did (the failure being Arafat's).

I cannot imagine any scenario where the US could broker an agreement between two factions while openly being biased toward one of them. No individual would put their dispute to a mediator who worked for or openly admitted to favoring the other side's position.

Yet, our elite not only can't admit this truth to the American public, they intentionally conflate "even handedness" with adopting the possibility Israel has no right to exist. As if that was ever, or could ever be, a point of negotiation.

The only solutions to this "big lie" is either a politician with the courage to point out the obvious and reveal the stupidity of those who endorse the lie, or to continue to go along with it for public consumption, but secretly let the representatives of Palestine know that you will be even handed in any talks.