Enablers of Hypocrisy

Rachel Maddow set herself apart from the majority of journalists by bringing Rep. Aaron Schock to task for his blatant hypocrisy.  She exposed him on NBC’s Meet the Press for attempting to reap benefits from a bill he voted against.  I have been saying for quite some time here on this site that conservatives have stopped serving their constituents and turned against the values they have claimed to represent for years.  Republican hypocrisy led to my conversion from Republican to a progressive-caucusing Independent, which I explained in my confessional piece “Journey of a True Conservative.”  The most egregious hypocrisies have been committed since Barack Obama took office just over 1 year ago.  Those who follow politics in America have noted that Republicans have gotten their suggestions incorporated into every piece of legislation that has crossed Capitol Hill since they lost the majority in 2006 but they have supported the bills—which they helped write—with virtually no votes.

Rachel Maddow, Our Jedi-Master of the Week

You have to admit as strategies go, this is a pretty good one.  You water-down a bill as much as possible.  You filibuster and delay as much as possible.  If and when the time finally comes to vote, you vote no even though your changes to the bill were accepted.  At best, the bill is defeated and at worst, the version that passes has been so watered-down that it is just a shadow of its former self.  In such a system, even a defeat can turn into a victory.  Even worse, is that the so-called Blue Dog Democrats have sided with Republicans to weaken or defeat bills even as Republican talking heads were telling the media that they opposed the bills because Republican ideas were being excluded.  This message has resonated with two groups of Americans: first, those who do not follow politics and therefore believe whatever they are told and second, those who welcome Republican positions by default because they oppose the progressive agenda regardless.  Additionally, the conservative TV and talk radio personalities who spout conservative talking points attack Democrats and progressive Independents constantly. At the same time, they give increasingly disingenuous conservatives a pass as they make blatantly false statements on TV.

Few would argue that the 24/7 news cycle has had a positive effect on the quality of journalism.  No one can expect a journalist to be perfect.  The first 40-50 years of TV journalism were imperfect to be sure.  The U.S. government tried to control the news where ever possible.  Failing that, it tried to manipulate or at the very least to influence what the American people believed via the news.  The 3 major networks had their jobs cut out for them upholding their journalistic fiduciary and for the most part, acquitted themselves well.  In fact, they did their jobs so well that the trust and respect journalists earned within the United States seems to have automatically spilled over into the 24/7 news cycle.  Fox News, CNN and other relative newcomers on the news scene were instantly given the same stature as authoritative news sources as the “big 3″ themselves.  This is not to say that they were not worthy of the trust they were given but it is important to understand why many U.S. news consumers have displayed the tendency to simply GIVE that trust without it having to be earned.

The American viewer has not caught up with the reality that reporting that is driven predominantly by profit and ratings in the 24/7 cycle needs a bit more scrutiny before it is to be believed.  The large sums of money paid to personalities at a network like Fox News tend to override some journalists’ focus on integrity.  Others find the task of striking a balance nearly impossible.  An example would be Bill O’Reilly having to cave when someone he brought frequently onto his show to offer an opposing opinion and analysis ran afoul of the conservative auto-censor and got canned by Rupert Murdoch.  The conservative auto-censor is the apparatus that kicks into gear automatically to stifle any discourse that is not in perfect harmony with its beliefs.  Did O’Reilly protest the censorship?  No.  He understood the principle of picking one’s battles and would not sacrifice any political capital for a relative nobody.  He also understood that the primary purpose of Fox News is not journalism.

The primary function of an organization is important when considering the implications of my assertions about the 24/7 news cycle.  CNN for example has worked diligently to build its reputation since the early 90′s.  They fell from number one among cable news and searched desperately for ways to compete with Fox News.  In the end, they understood that there was no viable way to compete for a number one ratings spot without following Fox’s emotional, mud-slinging example and eventually decided to remain true to their core focus, which is news.  This is a stark contrast to Fox News, which any objective analyst can recognize as a political operation.  Even if you believe Fox News CEO Roger Ailes when he said that Fox News is not into politics but into ratings, it takes a hopeful optimist to interpret this statement favorably with regard to Fox’s relationship with news.

3 minutes into the clip

This brings us back to enablers.  The only way that Republicans can deceive the public is with the participation of several groups.

1.  As mentioned, the Blue Dog Democrats—also known as Conservadems—have helped the Republicans immensely by enabling them to successfully derail the Obama agenda.  The Conservadems have turned out to be essentially red herrings to those constituents who voted for them to enact progressive measures in their home states.  It is questionable whether or not they would have gotten the votes that they did if the people in their districts had known that THEY would be the ones blocking health-care reform, repeal of DADT, the establishment of a new consumer protection agency, and banking legislation reform just to name a few.  Many of these Conservadems and Democrat-caucusing Independents such as Joe Lieberman have gone back on long-standing positions on progressive issues because they find themselves beholden to special interests.  Like the Republicans, Conservative Democrats depend on their ability to convince voters that they are acting in the public interest.  How can they reverse themselves on key positions in order to satisfy obligations to special interests without suffering political damage, unless they have a medium with which to communicate a plausible rationale?

2.  Journalists have become the medium by which politicians communicate “plausible” rationales that cross the spectrum of believability.  Nowhere is this more obvious than by a look at this past summer’s town-hall debates and a look at the ‘health-care-reform-is-a-plot-to-kill-your-grandmother’ debacle.  Republicans were allowed to perpetuate the lies and falsehoods about health-care not only by Fox News but also by CNN and the network news stations because it made for compelling TV.   It was not until George Stephanopoulos had his ill-fated run-in with Rudolph Giuliani that more emphasis was placed on the responsibilities of news organizations and journalists to ensure that information disseminated through their outlet is factually correct.  Stephanopoulos allowed Giuliani to assert that there had been no domestic attacks during the Bush administration.  This was not only a blatant lie but was especially inflammatory coming from the guy who was acting Mayor of New York City during the 9/11 attacks, which of course occurred during Bush’s first term.  In this case, Giuliani was just another conservative mouth piece who was hitting all of the usual conservative talking points as a matter of routine.  The idea is that if you keep saying something over and over, that sooner or later people will come to believe it, no matter how demonstrably false it may be.  Using this principle, Republicans have been able to successfully mischaracterize President Obama’s initiatives from the start.  Since the Giuliani incident, a few journalists—particularly those with their own shows—have been a bit more insistent on keeping guests focused on the topic being discussed rather than allowing them to run off on tangents or use the airtime to proselytize, make speeches, and work-in as many conservative talking points as possible.  By failing to keep talking heads of both parties in check, the journalist becomes the enabler in diverting the public’s attention away from national business.  In the previous example, Stephanopoulos could have said as many other journalists have, that it is the responsibility of the viewer to judge the voracity of the information presented by a guest.  Instead, he showed great integrity by admitting that not challenging Giuliani had been a mistake and vowing to do his best to ensure that it would never happen again.

The third enabler is…You. The susceptibility of the average American to political and electoral manipulation by special interests via members of Congress is a modern tragedy.  Corporations give increasing sums of cash to political campaigns and reward politicians using payments in barter as well.  In exchange for these payments, many Congressmen will adopt or oppose anything they can get away with.  That last sentence is key.  They will do it when they think they can get away with it.  John McCain stirred up a hornets nest a couple of months ago by siding with telcos (telecommunications companies) and against consumers over the net neutrality debate.  They decided that a way to get people to accept restriction of the Internet is by using the spin that it was to combat child pornography.  I mean, who isn’t against child pornography?  The first warning sign that this was a disingenuous effort on behalf of special interest was using an unlikely candidate such as John McCain who just 1 year ago admitted he had never used email or the Internet before.  Suddenly for reasons he cannot explain, he feels strongly about the Internet being used by criminals?  I don’t think so.  If you checked the blogosphere the next day, you would have found plenty of people who accepted McCain’s disingenuous stance.

Powerful telcos would be unable to influence American law if politicians did not take their money.  Of equal importance, telcos would not spend the money in the first place if they knew that the public would not accept such nonsensical fluff from politicians.  The obvious defense is to vet sources of information very carefully and to hold those individuals responsible who violate the public trust.  Since I started writing about politics, the most frustrating thing I have encountered is the defensiveness of conservatives.  Conservative people have been so thoroughly convinced that the “liberal media” is not to be trusted that their preformed ideas are completely impervious to factual rebuttal.  If I show a person clear scientific evidence to refute an idea that they believe they typically say, “Oh that’s just a liberal lie.” or “You don’t know what you are talking about.” or “You can’t believe anything you hear on the liberal media.”  They will go to any lengths to defend their beliefs.  Go to a political chat room on any day and you will see left-of-center ideals being expressed, with the person who expressed them coming under vicious personal attacks from the conservatives.  Rarely will you hear a well-reasoned rebuttal based in logic being offered from the Right.

Fox News and conservatives have also learned that the best way to keep liberals at bay is to drop the word God from time to time and to assert that they are simply defending Christian values.  The overwhelming majority of practicing Christians in the U.S. are so happy to hear someone mainstream talk like they do, even if it’s just a quick talking point, that they would not oppose such individuals to save their lives—literally.  Even more telling, is that they ignore other inherently American ideals by practicing religious discrimination (though that one is often ignored by the Right).

The hypocrisy that typifies today’s Republican party and conservative-leaning Democrats and Independents is the single biggest reason that the U.S. Senate is almost entirely dysfunctional.  What would happen if we could disable the enablers?

• Politicians would be unable to behave irresponsibly if their pole numbers suggested that their constituents would not tolerate it.
• Pole numbers would reflect the public distaste of a dysfunctional government if it was factually undeniable when either party was simply practicing obstructionism.
• Practicing gratuitous obstructionism would be impossible if conservatives found themselves unable to lie without being exposed on the spot.

A political environment such as described above would not disenfranchise so many American viewers and thus may increase viewership of TV that is educational and informative.  And last but certainly not least, such an environment would be catastrophically hostile to Dick Cheney.  Hallelujah!

We must recognize that no systemic process can solve all of these issues.  People will always be people.  Journalists will always have to compete to make names for themselves.  Politicians don’t become politicians without massive egos.  At the end of the day, you and I cannot answer for other people, politicians, or journalists but we can answer for ourselves.  As long as you do the right thing in as much as is humanly possible and do not accept feeble excuses from those in positions of trust who do not even try, those who fail to uphold their fiduciaries will be forced to give a reckoning when good people stand together.  If the future is to be better that what we have today, this is what must happen.  For now however, one can only dream.

[vodpod id=Video.3050512&w=425&h=350&fv=]

Side note:  Notice Harold Ford not so stealthily positioning himself for a congressional bid in November. He is as subtle as a tank driving through a library.  He even went so far as to defend big banks including their bonuses because as he said 680,000 people in New York work in banks.  Clearly, politicians bowing to special interests is a two-way street.  It is rare to hear a politician admit his influence is for sale before an election but that is essentially my take on what he said.  This is likely an attempt to get campaign contributions from Wall Street banks or at the very least, to placate them.  Perhaps he doesn’t see why all that TARP money should go to bank executives alone.  I hate to be so harsh but this is NOT a political climate in which ANYONE should be defending banks, NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE! Darn it, I used to like that guy.

Comments