Blame It On The Nature Of Hate Talk Radio And Pundit TV

Think of this post as Part II of today's coming to grips with the fact that, oops, we picked the wrong man to put over us last November-- not that John McCain (or even Hillary Clinton) would have been a better choice. On the other hand, Clinton did look into Rahm Emanuel's dead reptilian eyes early on and recoiled in horror. As we mentioned here at DWT, before Obama had even taken the oath of office, his administration was doomed to failure by his choice of chief of staff. Is it possible that anyone could have succeeded, though? Last night's throwing Van Jones overboard and next Wednesday's throwing meaningful health care reform overboard are symptoms of the increasingly ungovernable nature of what Charles Pierce has so aptly dubbed Idiot America. Or at least ungovernable by someone without great depth of character and courageousness. Obama, it turns out, is just another troll in a long line of trolls who have been occupying the White House.

I can't recommend Pierce's book highly enough. The subtitle, How Stupidity Became A Virtue In The Land Of The Free, opens the door to understanding the mess the country has fallen into, a mess Obama and Rahm Emanuel have no intention of tackling regardless of the fact that it is mooting what could have been/should have been an historic presidency. Pierce's three tenets of Idiot America:

The First Great Premise: Any theory is valid if it sells books, soaks up ratings, or otherwise moves units.

The Second Great Premise: Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough.

The Third Great Premise: Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believed it.

So, yes, smart money has indeed figured out how to get around that pesky concept of Democracy that is nothing but a threat to the status quo and the power of ruling-- as opposed to elected-- elites. I want to share a few passages from Pierce's 5th chapter, Radio Nowhere. We'll start at an "issues-oriented" Talk Radio convention where G. Gordon Liddy is about to be presented with that medium's equivalent of the Oscar For Best Picture of The Year.

[T]hreatening to poison a journalist [Jack Anderson] is a shining gold star on the résumé. Westwood One, a huge radio syndicator, gave Liddy a national platform, and Liddy did with it pretty much what you might expect. On one memorable occasion he gave his radio audience pointers on how to kill a federal agent. ("Head shots," he advised.) The comment caused no little outrage, particularly among federal agents with heads. President Bill Clinton mooed earnestly about the corruption of our national dialogue. This sent the talk radio universe into such collective hysterics that the New Media Conference in 1995 gave Liddy its coveted "Freedom of Speech" award for boldly speaking truth to power.

...[T]he format did not truly explode until 1987, when, in the deregulatory fever of the Reagan years the Federal Communications Commission revoked the Fairness Doctrine. This rule, adopted in 1949, had required licensed broadcasters to air all sides of the debate on controversial issues... After a favorable ruling by a federal court, and after Reagan vetoed a revival, the Fairness Doctrine was dead. Talk radio exploded on the right. As more and more stations became the property of fewer and fewer companies-- the repeal was only a small part of the general deregulation of the public airwaves-- the medium's ideology hardened like a diamond. These days, the conservatives' dominance of AM radio is overwhelming.

... Since right-wing populism has at its heart an "anti-elitist" distrust of expertise, talk radio offers the purest example of the Great Premises at work. A host is not judged a success by his command of the issues, but purely by whether what he says moves the ratings needle. (First Great Premise: Any theory is valid if it moves units.) If the needle moves enough, then the host is adjudged an expert (Second Great Premise: Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough) and if the host seems to argue passionately enough, then what he is saying is judged to be true simply because of how many people are listening to him say it (Third Great Premise: Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is measured by how fervently they believe it). Gordon Liddy is no longer a gun-toting crackpot. He has an audience. He must know something.

Talk radio was the driving force in changing American debate into American argument. It moved discussion southward from the brain to the Gut. Debate no longer consists of thesis and antithesis, moving forward to synthesis; it is now a matter of choosing up sides, finding someone on your team to sally forth, and then laying the wood to each other in between commercials for male-enhancement products.



Talk radio provides a template for the clamorous rise of pundit television and for the even swifter interactivity on the Internet. And, because the field of play has moved from the brain to the Gut, talk radio has helped shove the way we talk to each other about even the most important topics almost entirely into the field of entertainment. In doing so, it has created a demand for inexpertise-- or, more accurately, anexpertise-- whereby the host is deemed more of an authority the less he is demonstrably polluted by actual knowledge.

After an extensive study of talk radio, and of the television argument shows that talk radio helped spawn, professor Andrew Cline of Washington University in St. Louis came up with a set of rules for modern American pundits:

1. Never be dull.
2. Embrace willfully ignorant simplicity.
3. The American public is stupid; treat them that way.
4. Always ignore the facts and the public record when it is convenient to do so.

"Television is an emotional medium," Cline explains. "It doesn't do reason well. This is entertainment, not analysis or reasoned discourse. Never employ a tightly reasoned argument where a flaming sound bite will do. The argument of the academic is sort of dull, but a good pissing match is fun to watch. To admit anything ore complicated is to invite the suggestion that you may be wrong, and that can never be. Nuance is almost a pejorative term-- as if nuance means we're trying to obfuscate."

I was working on this clip last night, a song by Rev Boy that a Facebook friend sent me, something you might call "the Republican Fight Song." I didn't know about Van Jones firing at the time. Take a look:



And speaking of Hate Talk Radio, Dave Neiwert, author of The Eliminationists has put together a compendium of examples of Glenn Beck promoting far-right extremist material on Fox News.

If It Walks Like A Duck And Quacks Like A Duck... Must Be Why The Washington Post, Despite David Broder, Endorsed Obama

Wednesday night McCain, who knows how to always make himself seem like he and his-- or rather Palin's-- followers are the long-suffering victims of the war against Christmas or Easter or something, defended, valiantly, the fine folks who go to the Palin rallies. The ones who scream racist epithets and threaten violence against Barack Obama. He said he's "proud" of them (just like he's proud of G. Gordon Liddy, a terrorist he pals around with). Let's meet some of the McCain-Palin rally goers he's so proud of... in Ohio:



Did you miss some of that? Some of these men and women might be chewing tobacco, so listen a little more carefully... to the folks who plan to vote Republican and of whom John McCain is so proud of. This morning's Post makes more sense. By all means, read the whole thing at the link. They profess admiration of McCain-- or at least what used to be McCain, but they endorsed Obama "without ambivalence." Here are a couple of key paragraphs:

The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama's relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.

Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.

...Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.

But not everyone is so enthusiastic about Obama. Just look at what a trashy GOP women's group from California's lovely Inland Empire sent out. This is racism at its purist and most Nazi-like. But these repulsive Republican whores are so brainwashed by Palin and Limbaugh and Hannity that they don't even realize what they're doing. These are the kinds of people John McCain is so "proud" to have the support of-- and it's only people with this mentality who still support him.

Sheila Raines, an African-American member of the club, was the first person to complain to Fedele about the newsletter. Raines, of San Bernardino, said she has worked hard to try to convince other minorities to join the Republican Party and now she feels betrayed.

"This is what keeps African-Americans from joining the Republican Party," she said. "I'm really hurt. I cried for 45 minutes."

Someone's going to have to explain to Sheila about fleas.


UPDATE: AND NOT JUST THE POST TODAY

The San Francisco Chronicle also endorsed Obama today but it isn't likely to have a great impact on the outcome of the election since Obama is leading McCain in California by an insurmountable margin. West Virginia, on the other hand, is dead even and Obama is about to start a real push in that state. The Charleston Gazette can have an impact. And they didn't only endorse Obama; they endorsed virtually every Democrat at every level, from the House of Delegates and the state Senate to Governor, Agricultural Commissioner, Congress, etc. Meanwhile the Palm Beach Post withdrew its endorsement of fake Democrat Tim Mahoney and is urging voters to cast their ballots for Tom Rooney, who will probably be the only Republican challenger to beat a Democratic incumbent-- if you insist on calling Mahoney a Democrat-- this year.

Yes, it's another installment of "Know Your U.S. Public Servants": "Ambassador" Sam Fox shares the spirit of Christmas with 1,700 of his best buds

As you sort through your Christmas loot, perhaps coming to grips with the wreck of a life you’ve led, to be filled with such a sad lot of cheap, thoughtless gift-givers, this little item from our pal Al Kamen’s last Washington Post column before taking off on vacation last week may bring a tear to your eye.

You remember "Ambassador" Sam Fox, right? You know, the Swiftboaters’ sugar daddy, who was rewarded with the ambassadorship to Belgium (and if financing a band of sociopathic liars to help steal an election doesn’t earn a fellow an ambassadorship, what does?), only his nomination couldn't get out of Senate committee and so had to be end-arounded with a recess appointment? In case you missed it, here’s how the "ambassador" sent greetings from Belgium to his 1,700 nearest-and-dearest:

Merry Xmas From Belgium

GOP mega-contributor Sam Fox, the Swift boat backer who received a controversial recess appointment to be ambassador to Belgium, has arranged for special, one-kilo (2.2-pound) bars of superb, dark Belgian chocolate, stamped with the State Department seal, to be given as Christmas presents.

The Belgians are speculating that President Bush, a renowned chocophile who shopped for chocolates on trips to Belgium in 2001 and 2005, will most surely find one of these under the tree Christmas morning.

That bar would be part of a 1,700-bar order that Fox placed with famed Antwerp chocolatier Erik Goossens, whose company specializes in high-end chocolates. Most likely, several other White House aides and administration officials will be getting the prized chocolates.

"It was quite difficult to do," Goossens told us, requiring "special molds and special boxes." It was all "very fancy. We did our best." That should be more than delicious.

How much would all this cost? Goossens wouldn't touch that one, though he noted that his 52-year-old family company considered it a "prestige project." That probably means Fox got something of a break on the price. And this is a nearly two-ton purchase.

Let's do some cogitating. Goossens's chocolates sell for a little more than $50 a pound in this country. So each bar would cost about $110.

Perhaps Fox could make such a bulk purchase for $150,000. Maybe he will send some chocolate to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Democrats, who are still furious at the White House for pulling back his nomination at the last minute and giving him the ambassadorship?

AND IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO ENTER AL'S
"WHAT WAS IN THAT OFFICE, ANYWAY?" CONTEST

Did you hear about the fire in Vice President "Big Dick" Cheney's Eisenhower Executive Office Building lair a week ago Wednesday? "Naturally," says Al, it "has everyone in Washington speculating about its origin. Arson might seem a bit far-fetched to folks outside the Beltway, but it would not be the first time a small conflagration was planned by a White House official."

Which sends Al strolling down Memory Lane, to the crackpot plot hatched by G. Gordon Liddy to firebomb the Brookings Institution--

"as a diversion," he writes in his memoirs--to get into the security vault and steal Daniel Ellsberg's Vietnam War papers.

"We devised a plan that entailed buying a used but late-model fire engine of the kind used by the District of Columbia fire department," Liddy wrote, "and marking it appropriately." The plot included "uniforms for a squad of Cubans" and adequate "training so their performance would be believable."

The firebomb would go off at night "so as not to endanger lives needlessly," Liddy wrote. "The Cubans in the authentic-looking fire engine would 'respond' minutes [later] . . . hit the vault, and get themselves out in the confusion" as real fire equipment arrived. "The bogus engine would be abandoned at the scene."

The decision from higher-ups, Liddy wrote, "was swift. 'No.' Too expensive. The White House wouldn't spring for a fire engine." (Pikers!)

"And now," writes Al, "we have this curious, possibly successful fire Wednesday. So the obvious question is: What did they try to burn? [Emphasis added.] (We'll let the appropriate authorities find the perps.)"

Yes, it's the final In the Loop Contest for 2007. Simply guess what documents or other materials the arsonists were trying to destroy. Could it have been a secret legal opinion from Cheney Chief of Staff David Addington, giving the vice president the inherent authority to set the fire?

Send your entries to hitthevault@washpost.com. Winners will receive an In the Loop T-shirt. You must include your name and telephone number (home, work or cell) to be eligible. And of course, administration officials and Hill folks may opt to enter "on background." Deadline is Jan. 9. Don't delay.

Man, we'd love one of them T-shirts. If you've got any ideas that you'd like to have ripped off--I mean, that you'd like to share--just fire away.

#