as depicted by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies. There is what the American people really think--their opinions, beliefs, desires and ethical bottom lines--and there is "reality-2," what the corporate news monopolies know to be true about what the American people think (their opinion and issue polls and other indicators), "reality-3", what the corporate news monopolies portray the American people as thinking, and "reality-4," what the corporate news monopolies would like to convince the American people to think (their propaganda/White House "talking points" of the week).
There are probably some "sub-realities" in there (i.e., what rightwing think tanks would like the corporate news monopolies to portray the American people as thinking, etc.), but let me stay with the broad "realities." They are complicated enough, and need some explaining.
Let me preface this by the first odd discontinuity that struck me about the American Prospect/Laura Rozen article in the above post.
Rozen writes that "the torture memos and 'extraordinary renditions' -- with their subterranean narrative of an almost wholly undebated U.S. policy to commit torture -- had bounced off the Teflon presidency of George W. Bush."
One gauge of what the American people really think is the public opinion polls on various issues. In May 2004, polls showed that 63% of the American people oppose torture "under any circumstances"--that is, a huge majority of the American people, including, necessarily, many Republicans and even some rightwingers, were sticking to their sense of justice and lawfulness and their ethical principles on the matter of torture, despite relentless fearmongering and propaganda. They would not condone torture UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES--not if "terrorists" had a nuke in a city, not if lives were reportedly at risk, not if their own children were at risk. "Under any circumstances."
Rozen says that Bush's contrary policy, not stated, but real enough--that torture is almost casually okay, that we may torture anybody at any time--"bounced off the Teflon presidency of George W. Bush." What does she base this statement on? Presumably on the results of the 2004 election. And how and from whom were those "results" obtained? The "result" that Bush won was obtained from two far rightwing Bushite corporations--Diebold and ES&S--who, by the 2004 election, had achieved control of 80% of the nation's vote tabulation with "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code in the new electronic voting systems.
There is really no other evidence that Bush won the 2004 election, except that provided by his buds at Diebold and ES&S. All other evidence points to a Kerry win, including the corporate news monopolies exit polls on election day, which said Kerry won, and--get this--which the news monopolies ALTERED on everybody's TV screens, late on election day, to FIT the results of Diebold's and ES&S's secret formulae (Bush won).
If, as I believe, George Bush lost the 2004 election, and Kerry won it by a comfortable margin (4% to 5%)--a belief for which there is considerable evidence--then the proper analysis of the torture issue is that it was not "teflon" but rather Diebold and ES&S and their secret programming that accounts for the big discrepancy between American opinion on torture and how that opinion may have affected American votes.
There are similar discrepancies between American public opinion, as reflected in a broad range of issue polls over at least two years, on virtually every major Bush policy, foreign and domestic. You name it. Torture policy. The Iraq war. The deficit. Social Security. Women's rights. Americans disagree with Bush in huge numbers, way up in the 60% to 70% range, on every issue.
How then did he get re-elected? Was it all those phony "terrorist alerts" just before the election that everyone was laughing at? Was it Karl Rove's "invisible get-out-the-vote campaign"? (When was the last time you believed anything Karl Rove said?) Was it some magical-mystery, last minute "Christian" vote for which there is no evidence? What?
In fact, the issue polls are one of the subsidiary evidences that Bush did not, and could not have, won the 2004 election. Another is Bush's personal approval ratings, so low leading up to the election that Zogby said he couldn't win (and which were undoubtedly affected by the Abu Ghraib torture photos).
You see what I mean by these different realities. There is what Americans really believe, and there are the issue polls, which probably closely parallel what Americans really believe, but which are largely ignored and not discussed in the corporate monopoly press, and therefore do not become part of "reality-3 (what the corporate news monopolies portray the American people as thinking). Opinion polls are also often slightly skewed to the right, so that 63% opposing torture "under any circumstances" is probably 65% or more, with only 25% supporting torture or having no opinion.
Opposition to the Iraq war has been close in numbers to Americans' opinion of torture, but slightly less--just under 60%--and has been since BEFORE the invasion. Feb. '03: 58% opposed to Bush's war. That stat, too, had to have included many Republicans. It's a stat that I will never forget. It burned into my mind. How is it, with 58% of the American people opposing this war, we are rushing to war anyway--catapulting toward war, over the opinion of the American people, the U.N., major allies, and much of the world?
That stat alerted to me to something not smelling right in these different "realities," and it also gave me hope: Americans are neither stupid, nor uninformed, nor "sheeple" (as they are often accused of being). They are pretty savvy, in fact. They're not buying the Bush regime's lies. And they overwhelmingly desire peace. (About half of that 58% opposed the Iraq war outright; the other half would only agree if it was a U.N. peacekeeping mission--that is, if it had world consensus, and was not a pre-emptive war by Bush. Also, that number dipped only once, during the first few weeks of the invasion with U.S. troops at max risk, and then went right back up to nearly 60%, where it stayed throughout the election. It's above 60% today.)
Teflon? Or the manufactured creation of an ILLUSION of Teflon, a la "realities" 3 and 4 (what the corporate news monopolies portray the American people as thinking, and, what the corporate news monopolies would like to convince the American people to think).
In fact, the American people were coming to despise Bush & Co. in 2004, leading up to the election. The corporate news monopolies failed to reflect this, in their news coverage and opinion, and then twiddled their own exit poll numbers on election day to fit what they wanted to be true--a Bush win--an action that effectively dampened protests and calls for investigation, denied the American people major evidence of election fraud, by giving them false numbers, and forced the American people into "reality-4": what the corporate news monopolies would like to convince the American people to think: that somehow Bush won, despite all other indicators, with no evidence to the contrary.
That's where most Americans are today, as to the election: in "reality-4," what the corporate news monopolies want them to believe. Isolated, alone, disempowered, disenfranchised, feeling like "I'm the only one" (with progressive views), ineffective, helpless consumers of a truly shoddy product: corporate controlled news.
The "teflon" that supposedly has protected George Bush from the slings and arrows of American public opinion only exists in "realities" 3 and 4, what they portray us as thinking, and what they would like to convince us of. In "reality-1"--real reality--Bush had some "teflon" briefly after 9/11, and then quickly lost it, as he and his cohorts began to twist that event to their own ends and desires: the invasion of Iraq, the seizure of their oil fields, and a new multibillion dollar porkbarrel for Cheney's failing company, Halliburton, and others, protected from accountability by claims of "national security."
The American people WERE paying attention to all this, were reading between the lines, or getting alternative news or word of mouth--and greatly disapproved of it. But no one cared what they thought. The polls were ignored. Big protests were marginalized. It did not become part of "realities" 3 and 4. It just remained reality (real reality).
The chief mystery of the 2004 election is why the Democrats said nothing--absolute dead silence from top to bottom--about Bushite corporations having gained control of the vote tabulation with secret, proprietary programming code (and, not incidentally, no paper trail--zero ability to audit or recount--in a third of the country, and wholly inadequate auditing and recount provisions elsewhere). It's no mystery why the war profiteering corporate news monopolies never mentioned this. They LIKE have rightwing corporations owning and controlling the vote tabulation. It fits their own rightwing agenda. But the Democrats are another matter. Some of them, at least, really are progressives; voted against Bush's war; and would like to implement programs like universal health care. How could they be silent about partisan control over vote counting?
When California's Democratic Secretary of State Kevin Shelley was driven out of office by rumors touted around the state by the San Francisco Chronicle--Shelly, who had sued Diebold's ass and banned some of its worst machines prior to the 2004 election, and had also demanded to see their source code--there were stories of the Dem leadership in the California legislature strongarming other Dems to vote against Shelley, and some hiding out in their offices to avoid doing so. They wanted to do the right thing (support Shelley) and were being bullied by their own leadership not to.
What is going on here? One thing that is going on is lavish lobbying by Diebold, ES&S and a third voting machine company, Sequoia. (The previous CA Sec of State, Republican Bill Jones, and his chief aide, Alfie Charles, now work for Sequoia. Shelley banned such "revolving door" employment in his office.) (Shelley may have been the last honest public official in the country.) Connie McCormack, the head of Los Angeles elections, and a big advocate of Diebold and paperless voting (and a Democrat), it turns out, was best friends with Diebold's chief salesperson in California. Wined and dined and vacationed with her. McCormack was a featured speaker at a Diebold-ES&S-Sequoia bash, this August, at the Beverly Hilton--a week of fun, sun and high end shopping for election officials from around the country--with dinner, dance, "awards," all sponsored by these Bushite vendors.
Check it out. It'll burn your eyeballs:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380340So there is just plain old venal corruption--which the Democratic Party has a long history of. There is fear--fear of the party leaders if you don't go along, and maybe fear of election officials like McCormack, who now sit like lords and ladies atop the gobble-de-gook esoterica of electronic voting, which nobody else understands (or few do), least of all the peon voters. She can make you or break you, at the touch of a keyboard. (Electronic voting systems are extremely insecure, and hackable--one hacker, a couple of minutes, is all it takes). She knows how the votes are counted (or not counted). You don't. You're just a selected representative of the people, or a mere voter. You are not an "expert." (McCormack actually used this sneer against a public voting rights advocate--"she's not an expert.")
One other thing: Diebold and ES&S aren't just electronic voting companies. They have many other ventures, and many government contracts--all of which are opportunities for corruption, lavish lobbying, "revolving door" employment and payola of various kinds. We've come to more or less accept this stink in government. It has now invaded our election system itself, with a strong, aversive skunk odor that pollutes the entire country.
As for the top Dem leadership, the DNC--Terry McLuiffe, Donna Brazile--their report on the 2004 election whitewashes the massive, overt vote suppression in Ohio, and doesn't mention that rightwing Bushite companies had gained secret control of the vote tabulation during the 2002-2004 period. Corruption strongly suspected.
And there may have been war profiteering corruption--some Dems liked the war, supported it, voted for it, and maybe preferred that Bush continue to take the rap for the horror and the costs. They didn't want to win in 2004. And all of the Dems, with no exceptions, permitted our right to vote to be profoundly compromised--with no outcry--or sold it right down the river. A few--such as Conyers and Boxer--courageously objected to Ohio, and Conyers at least has not marginalized the issue of Republican partisans owning the voting system (although it doesn't seem to be primary to him).
The rest are corrupt, pro-war, or insane. I thought they were all insane, for a long time--their behavior was inexplicable-- before Kevin Shelley was assaulted, and before I stumbled over items like the Beverly Hilton event (deep doodoo corruption.) Now I think it's a mixed, and quite complicated, picture, including also a lot of fear of the Bush Cartel, which very likely anthraxed Dem Congressmen and killed Paul Wellstone. (Destroying Kevin Shelley was nothing to them--a cake walk. They likely have black dossiers on everybody with any iota of power, and direct or blackmail-able operatives in most corporate news organizations. The charges against Shelley were without substance. He was destroyed because he sued Diebold, plain and simple.)
I'm one who doesn't blame John Kerry for conceding. Better to concede and live to fight another day, however one can. He was up against the most dangerous people on earth, people who would stop at nothing to retain power--and was facing a Bush "pod people" Congress, and a Bush lapdog press, with no support for a challenge from his own corrupt party and (likely) advisers. There would have been blood on the streets. (Should he have gone the way of JFK, RFK and MLK? No!)
I didn't like his stand on the war ('I'll do a better war') or on torture (said not a thing about it). But I think he's a decent, intelligent, honest man, on the whole, and would have been a good president. (I don't think he ever would have initiated a pre-emptive war himself.) I think he might have been able to overcome the electronic fraud if he had been stronger on these issues, but I don't know if he would ever have been seated as president. I think they had other contingency plans for that (--a big "terrorist alert" to shut down of the vote count.) (They sent Dick Cheney to Hawaii, of all places, to pump for votes, two days before the election. I suspect that his plane being out over the Pacific was part of that contingency plan.) These criminals had a great need to retain power in 2004, to cover up their crimes, their treason, and their grand theft. I just don't think they would have permitted anyone with any honesty to take over.
Anyway, to get back to my point, we are in a whole new world here, the "Matrix" world of clever fascist propaganda, illusions, manipulated realities, and rank exploitation, thievery and murder (in Iraq, of tens of thousands of innocent people slaughtered). It is a credit to the American people that they continue to register their strong objections to Bush and Bush's distinctly minority policies of pre-emptive war, torture and making the poor pay for it all--and their extremely phony and very non-mainstream "social values" polices. I salute the American people for it. No people, in the history of the world, has ever been subjected to such insidious and relentless propaganda, and yet they are stubbornly sticking to their progressive views and ideals.
Bush has no "teflon." That is no more true than that Karl Rove is a genius. (How much talent does it take to manufacture "talking points" for a lapdog press?) The corporate news monopolies are giving us THEIR version of "reality," that he had "teflon," and now he doesn't--for their own purposes. It has little or nothing to do with Americans "waking up" or suddenly turning against Bush. They probably intend to install a War Democrat for four years, in 2008, to start taking some of the rap for Bush's financial and foreign policy disasters, and to get a Draft (which Bush can't do), preparatory to something worse in '12 (Jeb?). I don't trust them for one minute. I don't trust their coverage of Katrina (although I do think it was an awakening, or an opportunity, for some reporters, who would like to have told the truth about Bush & Co. and weren't allowed to. Katrina, being so stark, and so visual--a hard story to suppress, or spin--gave them their chance to, for once, rip away the "Matrix" veil.)
When we write political articles--articles that try to sum up, or sort out, what it's all about--we need to be careful to distinguish among these "realities": 1. real reality (what Americans really think), 2. what corporate news monopolies know to be true, 3. what corporate news monopolies portray or reflect as American beliefs, and 4. what corporate news monopolies want to convince us of. We need to seriously question their narrative of American life and politics. They have been hawking lies and illusions for some time now. Do we really think that it is suddenly dawning on them that that is wrong, that that is not journalism, that that is a huge disservice to the public, and that they should change their ways, and start reporting the truth? That's quite a leap. We should be very suspicious of it. And we should, above all, not let it stop us from demanding transparent elections and restoration of our right to vote.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
