Here Comes the Onslaught

by: David Sirota

Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 16:20


This Newsweek cover piece is the starting gun of the elite pushback against what could be a new progressive era. Penned by one of the most reliable peddlers of Establishment talking points, Jon Meacham, it ignores a wealth of easy-to-find empirical public opinion data showing the country's progressive majority on most major issues, and instead essentially argues that a President Obama will have to govern America as a slightly more moderate Ronald Reagan. To Meacham, insulated in his chattering class world of dinner parties and television green rooms, America of 2008 is the same as America circa 1980 - even as the latest presidential and congressional polls suggest the possibility of a massive progressive landslide.

From a pure journalism perspective, it is stunning that the editor-in-chief of a supposed "news" magazine is writing cover pieces that read like cheap Republican Party direct mail, and ignore empirical data. Then again, "objectivity" in the media today is defined as worshiping the status quo, denigrating popular uprisings, and serving as stenographers to power, celebrity and money. So in that sense, this Newsweek piece is - nauseatingly - "objective" (and yet, Meacham then wonders why readers prefer the far more empirical Economist to the increasingly unreadable - and strident - conservative agitprop of Newsweek).

The question will be how much this kind of smug propaganda emanating from media megaphones in New York City and Washington, D.C. will impact a President Obama (who will - at least officially - be in an office that is supposed to represent more than the public opinion of Manhattan cocktail parties and Bethesda fundraisers). I'm not sure - in the one chance I had to discuss these issues with Obama, he showed both strong progressive inclinations, but also hesitation to try to challenge the parameters created by the elite. And so you better believe that if we want "real change," it is going to require sustained pressure from the progressive movement - pressure that shows just how totally out of touch the Jon Meachams of the world really are.

That the elite onslaught is starting even before election day shows just how frightened the Establishment is of the electorate it purports to understand and speak for. And while people like Meacham are, indeed, out of touch - let's give them credit: they seem to get that the potential for significant tectonic policy shifts are very real. That's why they are digging in even earlier than usual - and why the day after election day is when the fight for the future of the country is going to go into overdrive.

David Sirota :: Here Comes the Onslaught
UPDATE - ADDITIONAL THOUGHT: One additional thought - on a personal note as a progressive and a journalist, I find Meacham's piece incredibly depressing (which is, of course, the piece's desired effect on progressives), not because it's in any way accurate, but because it really shows just how conservatism and elitism is so utterly woven into the media - to the point where basic facts are simply tossed aside in favor of status quo-serving narratives. Reading a piece like this makes me wonder if there really is any place for progressive media voices at all - that is, it makes me wonder if all the work I put in scratching and clawing away is pointless. I don't think it is - but man, reading a piece like that is just demoralizing.

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Ugh (4.00 / 2)
I couldn't even finish that. What a horrible article, and they trotted out Jon Alter to make a week counterargument that mostly agrees with Meacham.

How about letting Bob Borosage make a real, fact based case that we are a progressive country and we are in a progressive era.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


Meacham is a pompous and self-important blowhard (4.00 / 1)
who appears to almost believe that he literally speaks for god. He has this incredibly annoying way of talking down to people, like he's some American Moses who KNOWS what Americans really think, and how central GOD is to the essence of all that is America. He's one of the central characters on the Charlie Rose Bloviating Hour, a core member of the Versailles Village, a spouter of empty self-reinforcing conventional wisdom.

Ugh, ech and pfew!

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)


[ Parent ]
It's funny you mention Jon Meacham .. (4.00 / 2)
he was on MTP after Powell .. and he was asked about the Powell announcement ... I forget what he said .. but he looked like someone who had a huge stick just shoved up his ass(No, I am not kidding!!)

He's ALWAYS like that (4.00 / 2)
One of the least self-aware people on TV these days.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

[ Parent ]
Progressives will have to break with Obama (4.00 / 2)
as soon as the election is over. Obama is temperamentally a moderate, and also very attuned to power politics; he will only support progressive causes if strong and forceful power centers push for them. We'll only see progressive action if has has to placate progressives to get things done.

I think one of the pushbacks needs to be on the intellectual side, or more properly the popular intellectual side. There's a lot of research on imperfect market competition showing markets are far from the all-wise panacea the right pretends they are. This needs to be combined with the enormous and obvious market failures in housing, banking, international trade, and transportation (to name a few) and the combination pushed into the public minds. It is really astonishing that this powerful combination of theory and experience has still been successfully repressed.


Disagree... (0.00 / 0)
Obama is not temperamentally a moderate.  His political advisors have convinced him in the old Dem way that being a Moderate is the best chance for Victory.   Based on his books, and his past, he is clearly a progressive at heart.  But he is also a careful person and we need to push him, to convince him that it isn't dangerous to pass progressive legislation.

[ Parent ]
Nope (0.00 / 0)
Unless by "progressive" you mean voting for warrantless wiretapping, promising that faith-based groups will "help set our national agenda," and leading the charge for Hank Paulson's unarmed, Robin-Hood-in-reverse, robbery.

Wait a minute, that was all just to get elected, right?

Oh, yeah, the real "progressive" obama is in his books.


[ Parent ]
I'm glad you pointed this out (4.00 / 1)
I think what's annoying about the article is its dishonesty. I'm trying to decide what to think that Obama is said to be center-right because he opposes gay marriage rather than be center-left because he supports civil unions and wants to repeal sections of DOMA.  But perhaps the most bizarre part is that the article literally states Obama is not going to govern as a liberal because he is spending money in Virginia and even West Virginia. Now, everyone at Open Left knows to be skeptical that he will govern as a liberal, but this is just dishonest.
 

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

demoralizing (4.00 / 1)
there is no doubt in my mind that the purpose of articles like that is to persuade us to give up before we even begin.

[ Parent ]
Off topic but (4.00 / 2)
a friend recently forced me to watch "The Excorcist" for the first time. At one point, the young priest asks the old one, "Why?" And the old one answers, "to make us despair, to make us give up hope."

Fits the corporate media nicely, doesn't it?

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Correction (4.00 / 1)
Barack Obama supports a full repeal of DOMA.

But, he's center-right.

If so that's great news, beacuse gay marriage would have to been in the center :)

And if wanting to renegotiate NAFTA is center-right. Repealing it is in the center and single payer is in the center. And all of that.

I guess there is more then one way of looking at the article.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


[ Parent ]
No... (0.00 / 0)
He is not Center-Right.  He is center-left.  Next!

[ Parent ]
When did Newsweek become (0.00 / 0)
further right than TIME?

I used to think that Newsweek was slightly more liberal, but lately, every article I've read seems utterly defensive of conservatism (see Zakaria's defense of Bush) or wreaking of conservative conventional wisdom.  Even TIME sometimes acknowledges that the winds are (have been) blowing in a more progressive direction.


Short answer? (4.00 / 1)
Meacham. A wingnut welfare baby if you ever saw one. He didn't hire Karl Rove for nothing, it had to be payback for favors he got on the way up.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Time cover in 2006 (4.00 / 1)
Hey... remember when Joe Klein used to be as much of a dick as anyone on Fox News?

Media Matters contrasted this centrism in the face of a Democratic tide with Time's cover during the '94 Republican Revolution.

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers


[ Parent ]
Oh yeah, I remember (4.00 / 2)
Can we have a picture with a nice big donkey standing over an elephant's skeleton now?

[ Parent ]
Could Swampland play a role? (4.00 / 1)
It used to be that the writers never interacted with the readers, so they were mired in conventional wisdom.  Ever since they unveiled Swampland, they've had all this reader feedback and communication with the blogosphere, and it seems to have had an effect.  The blog posts often sound cynical and occasionally even left leaning.  The dead tree edition still needs work, though.

[ Parent ]
Time and Swampland (0.00 / 0)
You are exactly right. Joe Klein is no longer JokeLine; he interacts with commenters, several of whom are excellent writers with great insights and a willingness to challenge conventional wisdom, and he seems to have broadened his field of vision immensely.

Karen Tumulty is terrific with interaction, very specific and factual. She posts lots of short pieces of where she's been and what she's seen, and she's given me a lot of insight on what actually happens on the campaign trail.


[ Parent ]
Why does that look like a fat ass's butt crack? (4.00 / 2)
So are they saying that if you're in the center, you are basically an asshole?

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

[ Parent ]
changiness (0.00 / 0)
The question will be how much this kind of smug propaganda emanating from media megaphones in New York City and Washington, D.C. will impact a President Obama
available evidence is not encouraging.

November 5th we party... (4.00 / 3)
...and then November 6th we get to work pushing back against the crazy Rightwing narrative ("stolen election," "conservative country," "socialist Muslim sleeper cell," etc.) and pushing strongly for a progressive agenda. I think Obama is very open to progressive policy ideas, but he has been successful by being a very careful and cautious politician. Still, if we can clear a path for him and pave it enough so that he can easily roll down our way, then I think he will go our way.

Thanks David for all your efforts to document the populist uprising and to focus on true progressive change. Starting November 6, your leadership (and that of all the folks at OpenLeft) will be invaluable.


I too often wonder what the hell these bloviators are talking about (4.00 / 1)
when they keep saying that America is a "center-right", let alone "conservative" country, because nearly all important issues, the majority of Americans actually support what I'd call "center-left", if not outright "left", policies, such as:

--Ending our occupation of Iraq

--Establishing universal health insurance

--Preserving and if need be strengthening and expanding social security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, unemployment insurance, and other vital entitlement programs

--Some form of abortion rights, and nearly all forms of birth control

--Some form of gay rights, including civil unions

--Acknowledging the reality of manmade global warming, and doing something about it

--Properly regulating financial and other corporations, so that they don't manipulate the markets, exploit the public, produce unsafe, unhealthy and substandard products, and destroy the environment

And so on. So I literally have no idea what they're talking about. On policy, even ideology, the majority of Americans are indisputibly center-left, even if they currently wouldn't likely call themselves that (due to the successful effort by the right to make being center-left seem un-American, and the establishment media's collaboration in this).

At most, one might argue that the majority of Americans are "center-right" or "conservative" in the sense that they are traditional in how they live their lives and view their country. I.e. they believe in family, friends, country, loyalty, honesty, militry service, are proud to be Americans, and so on. But even THAT is dishonest, because in what way, shape or form are these values "center-right" or "conservative"? When did the right take ownership of them? Sorry, I never got that memo. Or the one that said that liberals don't believe in any of these things, and are non-traditional Americans. Should I get on the Michelle Bachmann mailing list so that I'm better informed about what being American really means?

These people never quite explain what they mean by this, at most implying that "conservative" values are somehow more "American", and that "liberal" values are somehow less so, but never getting into the details. It's all some mushy variation on "I loves me my country, flag, gun and god, therefore I'm a conservative, and a true American". In their own way, sanctimonious phonies like Meacham are basically saying the exact same thing that racist and hateful asshats like Bachmann are saying, just in more elegant and restrained form.

I wouldn't be so depressed, David. These jerks do not speak for most Americans. They speak for themselves, their privileged and sheltered clique, and their corporate overlords. And more and more Americans are coming to realize this, and that what they've been told for all these years is a bunch of lies. The media is always behind the reality-perception curve, and they're behind it yet again. This is, long has been, and likely long will be, a center-left country, in the ways that most matter: policies, and the core values that they spring from.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)


At least Mecham mentions an "interesting argument" (4.00 / 2)
In Perlstein's view, the system is set up to make it difficult for voters to achieve a government as liberal as their beliefs. Because of the veto, the filibuster and powerful interests, he says, a supermajority is needed to reform government. America's Founders "wrote a Constitution designed to make change a slow and deliberative process."

But just as one starts thinking he might not be intellectually dishonest, he immediately follows with this zinger:

Yes, they did, and it has served us rather well over time-not perfectly, God knows, but it has enabled us to muddle along for well over two centuries, always expanding, not contracting, individual liberty under law.

He is writing as if the Bush administration never happened.

[ Parent ]
Meacham, like nearly all of his bloviator friends (4.00 / 2)
"reports" and comments on the way he WISHES history had unfolded, up to the present time, rather than on how it HAS unfolded. He's talking about myths and narratives, not reality. His, and theirs, is an only somewhat more sophisticated version of believing my fairies and elves and Santa Claus. These are people who live in mythical realities that only resemble actual reality in their own febrile imaginations, and because they have each other to reinforce these myths, they never have to acknowledge their utter fallaciousness.

They engage in mutual fallacio. Heh.

But seriously, their only purpose is to serve as court stenographers and "historians".

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)


[ Parent ]
Good piece (4.00 / 1)
I agree...

My personal feeling on Obama has always been that inside he is a progressive.  He feels that Progressive policies are the way the country needs to be run.   THis is evidenced by past statements and stances.   I also think though he is cautious.  For some reason he either feels he has been hurt or burned by those progressive feelings, or he is still under the old mindset (and lets be honest, its been shoved down our throat for 40 plus years now) that you can't publically push a progressive policy UNLESS there is loud vocal support.  

I think you are a 100% right that we need to push to be heard... support Obama but make sure he knows that the PEOPLE are for Progressive policies.  Letters, media, whatever... we need the coordinated campaign similiar to the (ugh I hate to even type this) ones the Theocons have pushed... but we can't back off like they did after the 2004 election... we need to keep pushing.

Meanwhile, we need to continue the quest for better Democrats.  We will always have Blue dogs... After all, I have my doubts of Progs winning some of the more conservative districts and better a Blue Dog than a Republican... but even there we can maybe find some better dems...  Ones who are maybe more socially moderate but have a populist streak to them (Think John Edwards 2004 primary.)

It will take an effort.  We need to support our President, but we need to push for our legislation... which Obama should be proud of... it is the EXACT thing that he calls for in The Audacity of Hope... Citizens banding together to help get legislation passed and not just leave it up to Congress.


What a silly article (4.00 / 1)
Meacham is just absurd.

I wrote a response here.

...

"His entire point seems to build off the idea that the huge Blue wave is some sort of accident of history where voters are only turning to Democrats because they're not happy about the economy and Iraq. It's not that the country actually agrees with the Democrats, Meacham proposes, it's that unique circumstances have allowed them to gain the upper hand.

Completely missing from this analysis is the fact that the overwhelming majority of the nation blames Republicans (and their philosophies of government) for those problems, and desires a progressive change."


Did everybody see this? (0.00 / 0)
Christopher Buckley's locked and loaded as well. Earlier this week, referring to the piece on Daily Beast that got him canned from The National Review, he told Chris Matthews this:

Obama is a lefty. (snip) I don't think he's going to be able to govern as a lefty because if he does, he's going to reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.

Here the video link. Go the approximately the 4:35 mark

I wanted to smash the TV with a baseball bat.


The Media Has Become The Elites (0.00 / 0)
I have a long-standing theory, observation, whatever you want to call it about the MSM.

The media, whether it's print, TV, cable TV, etc., have become so overpaid that they now belong to the ranks of the elites in this country. For that reason, it's my belief that they're ALL right-wing and that's the slant they present to us every chance they get. It's for that reason, for example, that you get Charlie Gibson of ABC taking up the American peoples' time during a debate making sure he gets HIS questions answered by Barack about capital gains taxes. (When ABC is paying you $7,000,000 a year it's a concern, you know?) It explains, as well, why the media was so pro-Iraq-war when a lot of the public was skeptical.

It's also the reason that the right-wing talk radio blowhards ALWAYS call the media "liberal", "far-left", etc. They're telling all the low-information NON-deciders that NEED to be told how to think how they SHOULD think about what is really a bought-and-paid-for RIGHT-wing propaganda apparatus. They DO NOT serve we progressive, independent thinkers at all, which is why I spend so much time frustrated every time I try to watch them.

Have you noticed that two of the three anchors of the evening news came from MORNING TV?!? AND how much they're being paid?? Charlie (it's "Charles" now) Gibson and Katie Couric? Ms. Perky herself sitting in the chair Walter Cronkite used to occupy? And being paid more than "Uncle Waltie" ever got?

I don't have cable; I get my news from progressive blogs like this one, which weren't around four years ago, and the likes of Stephanie Miller (so I can laugh at the righties to keep from crying), Ed Schultz (straight talker extraordinaire), Randi Rhodes (the best researcher around), and Rachel Maddow (who beats the right with her brains so she doesn't have to baffle 'em with bullshit). That way I stay informed and keep my sanity.

Just my $.02.

Peace.
Olmecmystic


Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search