Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

The Last Temptation

Matthew Yglesias points out the growing Putinization of the Republican Party as it again tries to shut down dissent with legal intimidation. That first amendment sure sticks in the craw of the people who are running our government.

The RNC letter reads:

“The advertisement in question falsely and maliciously makes reference to ‘George Bush’s planned Social Security benefit cuts of up to 46 percent to pay for private accounts …’ ”

In his State of the Union address, the president said that “Social Security will not change in any way” for Americans 55 and older.”

Yeah. He said a lot of things. And?

Apparently, at least one of the station owners said he would investigate the ad and if he determined it was false, he would pull it. (The indefatigable Josh Marshall proves that the Move-on ad in question is factually correct and deconstructs the RNC letter to expose the obfuscatory mumbo jumbo that actually proves the case. Jayzuz, these guys never give up.)

Might I suggest that the DNC lawyers send letters to the same stations asking them to issue a disclaimer every time President Bush says that social security is going “bankrupt” or “bust.” Otherwise, somebody might get the idea that these media outlets were in the business of falsely and maliciously spreading misinformation about the status of the social security system.

With their usual up-is-downism, these are the same guys who claim that frivolous lawsuits are killing America. Evidently, it’s only frivolous if somebody has been disabled for life. It’s perfectly acceptable to use the courts to quell dissent.

Matt calls it Putinization. Neiwert calls it psuedo-fascism. I call it Republican totalitarianism. Whatever you call it, it’s long past time that we started to speak out clearly about what is really happening here. Interestingly, some of the most pointed criticism of this nature is now coming from the right:

A reader alerted me to this fascinating article from this month’s American Conservative in which yet another conservative goes off the reservation and utters the F word.

Students of history inevitably think in terms of periods: the New Deal, McCarthyism, “the Sixties” (1964-1973), the NEP, the purge trials—all have their dates. Weimar, whose cultural excesses made effective propaganda for the Nazis, now seems like the antechamber to Nazism, though surely no Weimar figures perceived their time that way as they were living it. We may pretend to know what lies ahead, feigning certainty to score polemical points, but we never do.

Nonetheless, there are foreshadowings well worth noting. The last weeks of 2004 saw several explicit warnings from the antiwar Right about the coming of an American fascism. Paul Craig Roberts in these pages wrote of the “brownshirting” of American conservatism—a word that might not have surprised had it come from Michael Moore or Michael Lerner. But from a Hoover Institution senior fellow, former assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, and one-time Wall Street Journal editor, it was striking.

Several weeks later, Justin Raimondo, editor of the popular Antiwar.com website, wrote a column headlined, “Today’s Conservatives are Fascists.” Pointing to the justification of torture by conservative legal theorists, widespread support for a militaristic foreign policy, and a retrospective backing of Japanese internment during World War II, Raimondo raised the prospect of “fascism with a democratic face.” His fellow libertarian, Mises Institute president Lew Rockwell, wrote a year-end piece called “The Reality of Red State Fascism,” which claimed that “the most significant socio-political shift in our time has gone almost completely unremarked, and even unnoticed. It is the dramatic shift of the red-state bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism, manifested in the Congressional elections of 1994, to almost totalitarian statist nationalism. Whereas the conservative middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the federal government, it now celebrates power and adores the central state, particularly its military wing.”

[…]

But Rockwell (and Roberts and Raimondo) is correct in drawing attention to a mood among some conservatives that is at least latently fascist. Rockwell describes a populist Right website that originally rallied for the impeachment of Bill Clinton as “hate-filled … advocating nuclear holocaust and mass bloodshed for more than a year now.” One of the biggest right-wing talk-radio hosts regularly calls for the mass destruction of Arab cities. Letters that come to this magazine from the pro-war Right leave no doubt that their writers would welcome the jailing of dissidents. And of course it’s not just us. When USA Today founder Al Neuharth wrote a column suggesting that American troops be brought home sooner rather than later, he was blown away by letters comparing him to Tokyo Rose and demanding that he be tried as a traitor. That mood, Rockwell notes, dwarfs anything that existed during the Cold War. “It celebrates the shedding of blood, and exhibits a maniacal love of the state. The new ideology of the red-state bourgeoisie seems to actually believe that the US is God marching on earth—not just godlike, but really serving as a proxy for God himself.”

[…]

The warnings from these three writers would have been significant even if they had not been complemented by what for me was the most striking straw in the wind. Earlier this month the New York Times published a profile of Fritz Stern, the now retired but still very active professor of history at Columbia University and one of my first and most significant mentors. I met Stern as an undergraduate in the spring of 1974. His lecture course on 20th-century Europe combined intellectual lucidity and passion in a way I had never imagined possible.

Stern is an expert on the rise of fascism in Europe. Here are some of his remarks upon receiving the Leo Baeck medal:

…the rise of National Socialism was neither inevitable nor accidental. It did have deep roots, but the most urgent lesson to remember is that it could have been stopped. This is but one of the many lessons contained in modern German history, lessons that should not be squandered in cheap and ignorant analogies. A key lesson is that civic passivity and willed blindness were the preconditions for the triumph of National Socialism, which many clearheaded Germans recognized at the time as a monstrous danger and ultimate nemesis.

We who were born at the end of the Weimar Republic and who witnessed the rise of National Socialism—left with that all-consuming, complex question: how could this horror have seized a nation and corrupted so much of Europe?—should remember that even in the darkest period there were individuals who showed active decency, who, defying intimidation and repression, opposed evil and tried to ease suffering. I wish these people would be given a proper European memorial—not to appease our conscience but to summon the courage of future generations. Churchmen, especially Protestant clergy, shared his hostility to the liberal-secular state and its defenders, and they, too, were filled with anti-Semitic doctrine.

Allow me a few remarks not about the banality of evil but about its triumph in a deeply civilized country. After the Great War and Germany’s defeat, conditions were harsh and Germans were deeply divided between moderates and democrats on the one hand and fanatic extremists of the right and the left on the other. National Socialists portrayed Germany as a nation that had been betrayed or stabbed in the back by socialists and Jews; they portrayed Weimar Germany as a moral-political swamp; they seized on the Bolshevik-Marxist danger, painted it in lurid colors, and stoked people’s fear in order to pose as saviors of the nation. In the late 1920s a group of intellectuals known as conservative revolutionaries demanded a new volkish authoritarianism, a Third Reich. Richly financed by corporate interests, they denounced liberalism as the greatest, most invidious threat, and attacked it for its tolerance, rationality and cosmopolitan culture. These conservative revolutionaries were proud of being prophets of the Third Reich—at least until some of them were exiled or murdered by the Nazis when the latter came to power. Throughout, the Nazis vilified liberalism as a semi-Marxist-Jewish conspiracy and, with Germany in the midst of unprecedented depression and immiseration, they promised a national rebirth.

Twenty years ago, I wrote about “National Socialism as Temptation,” about what it was that induced so many Germans to embrace the terrifying specter. There were many reasons, but at the top ranks Hitler himself, a brilliant populist manipulator who insisted and probably believed that Providence had chosen him as Germany’s savior, that he was the instrument of Providence, a leader who was charged with executing a divine mission. God had been drafted into national politics before, but Hitler’s success in fusing racial dogma with a Germanic Christianity was an immensely powerful element in his electoral campaigns. Some people recognized the moral perils of mixing religion and politics, but many more were seduced by it. It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured his success, notably in Protestant areas.

German moderates and German elites underestimated Hitler, assuming that most people would not succumb to his Manichean unreason; they didn’t think that his hatred and mendacity could be taken seriously. They were proven wrong. People were enthralled by the Nazis’ cunning transposition of politics into carefully staged pageantry, into flag-waving martial mass. At solemn moments, the National Socialists would shift from the pseudo-religious invocation of Providence to traditional Christian forms: In his first radio address to the German people, twenty-four hours after coming to power, Hitler declared, “The National Government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built up. They regard Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life.”

Jeebus H. Christ

Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There’s a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised.

‘Does that make any sense to you? It’s kind of muddled. Look, there’s a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.

‘Okay, better? I’ll keep working on it.’

I’m sure the hand-picked audience broke into rapturous cheers and began drooling and speaking in tongues as they always do when in the presence of Dear Leader. However, those who are not members of the Codpiece Cult might be expected to stay implanted on the reservation if they see this “explanation.” If any ads are done, this might be a good little piece of political theatre to show to the non-indoctrinated.

Via Salon.com Politics:

Believing His Own Hype

I wrote a post a while back musing about Bush’s newfound confidence:

This is the big story of the second term. Bush himself is now completely in charge. He did what his old man couldn’t do. He has been freed of all constraints, all humility and all sense of proportion. Nobody can run him, not Cheney, not Condi, not Card. He has a sense of his power that he didn’t have before. You can see it. From now on nobody can tell him nothin. It makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up, doesn’t it?

Today, I ran across a post by Yuval Rubenstein on the Left Coaster who points to this interesting article (via Gilliard) that discusses Bush’s determination to destroy SS:

During the 2000 campaign, then-Texas Gov. Bush overruled his horrified political handlers and insisted on pressing for Social Security privatization – particularly when speaking to Florida’s millions of geriatric voters.

To this day, Bush adamantly believes the issue was a political plus for him in Florida – a contention considered pollyannaish by many of his closest aides.

Some, in fact, say if he had kept quiet about tinkering with the most sacred of all domestic political cows, Bush would have won the Sunshine State easily, instead of needing the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold his 537-vote victory.

“He still thinks it helped him then,” a senior Bush political adviser remembered. “We all still think he’s crazy.”

Bush keeps reassuring legislators that it’s safe for them to vote for privatization because he ran and “won” on the issue. This report explains why he thinks that. He made the call to talk about it in 2000 and he “won” despite his handlers advice that it was dangerous. Therefore, everyone can feel safe (if they can manage to get the Supreme Court to decide the election for them.)

We know that the butterfly ballots would have tipped that election and if Bush was pushing privatization in Palm Beach County Florida, it would have been right and fair if he’d lost it just for that reason. Nothing could be more stupid. Except, perhaps, trying to actually do it.

I had been giving a lot of thought as to why he thought he could get away with destroying social security after two such narrow wins and small majorities in congress. They own the real estate for sure, but they are far from having a mandate for massive change. Even Tom Delay has been reported to be nervous that this will derail their majority.

Certainly, the polls do not show the kind of support that is normally needed to affect such a huge change:

1. Bush receives a 34 percent approval rating on handling Social Security, with 52 percent diapproval. And among independents, his rating is markedly worse: a mere 23 percent approval and 59 percent disapproval.

2. A question on the seriousness of the problems with Social Security yields just 18 percent saying the system needs to be completely rebuilt (12 percent among independents), with 33 percent saying major changes are needed and 43 percent calling for only minor changes.

3. By 61-29 (66-21 among independents), voters say that keeping Social Security as a program with a guaranteed monthly benefit is more important than letting younger workers decide for themselves how some of their Social Security contributions are invested, with varying benefit levels depending on the success of their investments.

4. By 61-24 (66-16 among independents), voters say Bush’s November election victory does not mean the American people support his ideas on Social Security.

5. By 54-42 (61-33 among independents), voters say they would not be likely to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in the stock market if they were allowed to do so.

6. By 50-33 (53-25 among independents), voters say they “disapprove of proposals to incorporate personal accounts into the Social Security program”. (Interestingly, despite the Republicans’ now-religious belief that saying “personal accounts” rather than “private accounts” somehow makes these accounts much more attractive, the half-sample that was asked this same question with private accounts substituted for personal accounts actually had a slightly less disapproving reaction.)

Those numbers put an absolute lie to Bush’s assertion that he “ran and won” on the SS privatization issue. Clearly, he did not.

But, his natural arrogance and tendency to listen to courtiers who flatter his ego means that he sees his narrow win in 2004 as a mandate to dismantle the New Deal. And it appears that he has completely misinterpreted the lessons of his “win” in 2000. He believes that defying the experts on the social security issue has already proven him to be a man of great courage and political instincts that far surpass those who would advise against it.

I suspect strongly that putting social security at the top of the agenda was Bush’s call. He really believes that he “won” on the issue and interprets that to mean that he has the support of the American people no matter what the polls, the experts or even other Republicans say.

Both Napoleon and Hitler thought they could invade Russia in the winter, too.

Witnessing History

Kevin Drum nicely deconstructs this tiresome Ward Churchill witch hunt. I realize that we soulless, decaying leftists are supposed to step up and repudiate him (or maybe tie him up and throw him in water to see if he floats) but I’m just too tired. Since I’d never heard of the guy before the right raised him to the status of leftwing icon I don’t really feel like I have much of a stake in his allegedly treasonous three year old book. Anyway, I’m still busy disavowing Jane Fonda and and Joseph Stalin, my personal role models.

Kevin ran a lexis search on the story and concludes that it really took off when the NY Times picked up the story after the right wing noise machine had slavered over it like a bunch of Atkins dieters with a big bowl of bacon grease. It has been blazing since January 27th when Drudge first trumpeted the story and the next day when Rush and O’Reilly both held forth on the topic. By the time the NY Times wrote its piece, it was already known and believed by tens of millions of people — which means they had to write about it; “it was out there!”

Kevin thinks it’s fascinating how an obscure story like this finds it’s way into the mainstream, but it’s much more than fascinating. It’s pernicious. This is also how lies and smears are spread and validated and there is almost no way to tell the difference anymore between a valid story and a right wing feeding frenzy. It’s supremely ironic that the minute the “liberal” NY Times decides to engage, even if it refutes the allegations and sets the record straight, it helps spreads the story everywhere because of its massive influence. Its mere entry into the discourse helps turn a contrived right wing smear job into a national scandal and puts one more nail in the coffin of truth and objective reality. Once people hear what they want to hear, it doesn’t matter if it’s been debunked as a total fraud. They’ll continue to believe it:

People Believe a ‘Fact’That Fits Their Views Even if It’s Clearly False

Funny thing, memory. With the second anniversary next month of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, it’s only natural that supporters as well as opponents of the war will be reliving the many searing moments of those first weeks of battle.

The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch. U.S. troops firing at a van approaching a Baghdad checkpoint and killing seven women and children. A suicide bomber nearing a Najaf checkpoint and blowing up U.S. soldiers. The execution of coalition POWs by Iraqis. The civilian uprising in Basra against Saddam’s Baathist party.

If you remember it well, then we have grist for another verse for Lerner and Loewe (“We met at nine,” “We met at eight,” “I was on time,” “No, you were late.” “Ah yes, I remember it well!”). The first three events occurred. The second two were products of the fog of war: After being reported by the media, both were quickly retracted by coalition authorities as erroneous.

Yet retracting a report isn’t the same as erasing it from people’s memories. According to an international study to be published next month, Americans tend to believe that the last two events occurred — even when they recall the retraction or correction.[emphasis added] In contrast, Germans and Australians who recall the retraction discount the misinformation. It isn’t that Germans and Australians are smarter. Instead, it’s further evidence that what we remember depends on what we believe.

“People build mental models,” explains Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychology professor at the University of Western Australia, Crawley, who led the study that will be published in Psychological Science. “By the time they receive a retraction, the original misinformation has already become an integral part of that mental model, or world view, and disregarding it would leave the world view a shambles.” Therefore, he and his colleagues conclude in their paper, “People continue to rely on misinformation even if they demonstrably remember and understand a subsequent retraction.”

[…]

“People who were not suspicious of the motives behind the war continued to rely on misinformation,” Prof. Lewandowsky said, “believing in things they know to have been retracted.” They held fast to what they had originally heard “because it fits with their mental model,” which people seek to retain “whatever it takes.”

This is where the right wing noise machine is really powerful. They create the “mental model” and then hammer it home day after day after day. People exposed to this mental model are told that the MSM is biased and that liberals are traitors and cowards. You have respected bloggers like Instapundit saying things like:

There was a time when the Left opposed fascism and supported democracy, when it wasn’t a seething-yet-shrinking mass of self-hatred and idiocy. That day is long past, and the moral and intellectual decay of the Left is far gone.

while radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh says:

I mean, if there is a party that’s soulless, it’s the Democratic Party. If there are people by definition who are soulless, it is liberals — by definition. You know, souls come from God. You know?

And then there is something like this coming from a mainstream opinion writer and television pundit Fred Barnes:

At his news conference last week, Bush reacted calmly to their [Democrats] vitriolic attacks, suggesting only a few Democrats are involved. Stronger countermeasures will be needed, including an unequivocal White House response to obstructionism, curbs on filibusters, and a clear delineation of what’s permissible and what’s out of bounds in dissent on Iraq.

These statements are not made on rare occasions. This is the ongoing “mental model” that is being promulgated day after day after day by highly successful opinion makers in media both new and old. Bloggers like Instapundit are considered mainstream and thoughtful, not bomb throwing partisans. He is linked approvingly by many establishment web sites and works for MSBNC. After all, he’s not saying anything unusual.

Neither is Limbaugh. MSM media critic Howard Kurtz said, “Sure, he aggressively pokes fun at Democrats and lionizes Republicans, but mainly about policy. He’s so mainstream that those right-wingers Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert had him on their Election Night coverage.”

So when these mainstream voices say that Ward Churchill represents the left with his obscure unknown thesis that the 9/11 victims were complicit in their own deaths, the view that the left is soulless is not difficult to accept. See how that works?

And, of course, the true irony is that all this breast beating and calls for dismissal and censorship comes on the heels of years of braying about political correctness in academia squelching free speech and dissenting points of view. It seems like only yesterday that I was reading conservative intellectuals like Walter Williams saying universities are “the equivalent of the Nazi brownshirt thought-control movement” and Paul Hollander calling it “the most widespread form of institutionalized intolerance in American higher education.” (I won’t even mention that champion of intellectual diversity David Horowitz.) Well now, it would appear that “political correctness vs academic freedom” comes in all flavors.

And it’s always a-ok for mainstream, influential intellectuals like Frank “cakewalk” Gaffney to say things like “The U.N. is a hateful and anti-Semitic mobocracy” or Michael Ledeen to publicly float a theory that 9/11 was the result of a “Franco-German strategy …based on using Arab and Islamic extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice, and the United Nations as the straitjacket for blocking a decisive response from the United States.” These inflammatory statements at a time of great global unease are not repudiated by anyone. Indeed, such dangerous rabble rousing is completely accepted and in some cases endorsed by the Republican establishment. No one questinos whether such statements might endanger American security or its stated foreign policy. Indeed, one is left to ponder whether it might actually be American foreign policy, considering the fact that those who write these screeds are welcome in the White House.

And that brings us to the crucial difference between Ward Churchill’s politically incorrect ravings and Gaffney, Ledeen and Williams’ politically incorrect ravings — the latter are powerful, well known intellectuals in the conservative movement who are on the inside of government policymaking at the highest reaches. Churchill on the other hand is a nobody.

Liberals have nothing to apologise for. Indeed, intellectual honesty requires that we do not. These conservative critics’ facts are wrong and their analysis is self-serving. They have concocted a “mental model” that is designed to marginalize and intimidate those who speak out against them. I’m not talking about obscure college professors with eccentric views. I’m talking about average Americans with mainstream views that don’t hew exactly to the Republican party line who are now viewed with suspicion as UnAmerican by association with this leftist chimera that sides with terrorists.

There has been some very interesting thinking on this the last week in the blogosphere. If you haven’t read it already, I especially recommend Max Sawicky’s pithy analysis:

…the Right doesn’t cast slurs on people because they are communist, anti-American, or cross some line of non-radical, patriotic acceptability. It casts slurs indiscriminately as a routine task of political warfare. That’s why they lump people like Ward Churchill with for god’s sakes Teddy Kennedy or Howard Zinn. They’re not using a faulty litmus test. They are trying to destroy political criticism.

This is absolutely correct. Someone asked me if I believe that conservatives are acting in good faith when they say things like this:

The Belmont Club: “One could hardly expect that the end of the Cold War, the decline of Europe, the ascendancy of India and China, the collapse of the UN and the advent of terrorism would leave political relations between Left and Right unchanged. But it was the declining vigor of Marxist thought coupled with new conservative ideas that poured the most fuel on the flames. Discourse between Left and Right could only remain civil for so long as Conservatives remained meek or had no counter-pulpit. . . The weakening of the traditional media and the stresses caused by war have created a kind of ‘play’ in the system which now allow unchained weights to crash about. What has changed is that, with the decline of the MSM, there is nothing which prevents incivility from becoming a two-way street. And I’m not sure either the Left or the total system can contain the stress.”

I have no way of knowing if this person sincerely believes that the decline of civil discourse in our politics can be pegged to world events and their supposed galvanizing effect on the right to finally defend itself against a failing Marxist left. I do know that it does not square with the facts or history. The Republicans have been throwing rhetorical nuclear bombs our way and getting away with it for decades. This harsh, no holds barred rhetorical style was ushered into the modern era by Newt Gingrich and other movement conservatives in the 1980’s. It was a conscious, tactical decision designed to intimidate.

From a 1989 article about Gingrich in Vanity Fair:

Gingrich, the new face, quickly recognized an opportunity. The House, which limits the length of debate over legislation, has a rule allowing so-called special orders –permission to give lengthy speeches at the end of each legislative day. These have long been a means by which congressman could read into the Congressional Record various matters of importance to their constituents, usually matters of trivia. But Gingrich, concerned less with the Record than with the potential television audience, began to use special orders regularly as his platform for advancing ideas and, especially, for attacking the Democratic majority.

At first, his approach gave the impression that he was a brave young crusader, taking on the opposition in heated floor encounters, but, in truth, most of his diatribes were delivered before a virtually empty House. When, in 1984, he escalated his attack on Democrats to the point of questioning their patriotism– accusing them of being “blind to Communism” –Speaker O’Neill lost his cool. In a legendary head-to-head encounter on the floor of the House, the Speaker blasted Gingrich : “You deliberately stood in that well before an empty House, and challenged these people, and challenged their patriotism, and it is the lowest thing that I’ve ever seen in my thirty-two years in Congress.”

That was 21 years ago. These incendiary insults to Democrats’ patriotism did not begin on 9/11. Gingrich went on to institutionalize the demonization of liberals as a political tactic with his “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control.”

If some people are unaware of that or have salved their consciences by creating a myth that today’s harsh political climate was the result of external events, is no excuse. This scorched earth style of politics was quite deliberately put into play for political gain. If these true believers have convinced themselves that the right wing has been meek and mild until it had to bravely step foward and defend the country against terrorists, a little google trip through the 90’s would surely cure that misapprehension.

And I frankly do not see why they should be given any consideration for their sincere belief in a toxic political strategy that wants to see people like me silenced and this country changed in ways that will make it unrecognizable. Shame on them for their unwillingness to step in and take responsibility for what they’ve wrought.

Shame on anyone who says that this is not the history of the last 25 years. I was a witness. I know what happened.

Cheater

You’d think that the story of a president who cannot appear in a 90 minute debate without the help of an electronic transmitter to feed him his answers would be worthy of reporting in a major newspaper if they had the goods.

What is truly scary about this is that even despite the help, he sounded extremely stupid and unprepared. This is the man with his finger on the button. The NY Times had excellent evidence that he had cheated in the debates and they punted. What would it have taken for the press to feel it was important to reveal this to the public, Bush screaming into his tie “Turd Blossom, I’m dyin’ out here?”

Link via Suburban Guerilla

Star Power

So Dean is going to be chair. Bobo Brooks just said that he was a bit too “secular” and “strident.” Oh my goodness, have we made a big mistake in not electing a santimonious wimp? I always get so worried when we don’t take the GOP’s sincere advice about such things.

Look, one of the biggest problems the Democrats are going to have over the next three years is getting the attention of the media. Media Matters has documented the over representation of Republicans on the cable gasbag shows and it’s truly alarming. And the liberals they do invite are often boring and ill prepared compared to the more “strident and religious” Republicans.

This is a huge problem. One of the reasons, I believe, that Bill Clinton was able to succeed was because he had a very high Q rating. (Don’t hassle me, readers, about using this obnoxious term. It’s relevant whether we like it or not.) He has tremendous personal charisma and he performed a high wire political act that was irresistable to the media. And it helped us get our message out, even when he was taking a lot of heat.

Howard Dean is like that in his own way. He creates a stir; you never know quite what’s going to happen. He fascinates the media and they will be paying very close attention. I don’t doubt that he will be undisciplined at times and create some trouble, but he will be visible. And every time the media calls on him is another chance for him to pound home our message.

Right now the biggest danger for Democrats is that we are becoming media ciphers. It’s not that we don’t have some power in DC. The social security debate shows that we can affect the process if we stand together. But as far as the country is concerned we are becoming invisible and we have to deal with that if we are to compete.

They are going to slam us no matter what we do. Dean, as a fascinating political figure, will be invited to personally respond. And he tends to do it memorably. It’s a mistake to underrate that talent.

Very Slick

Update on the DOD payola scandal from below:

Here’s one of the fake news sites:

This is quite amusing:

… media standards are also at stake. The eagerness of some media organisations to repeat sensationalistic rumors without verification has raised serious concerns about journalistic standards at a time when Turkey — which hopes to receive a date for starting EU membership negotiations at the Union’s summit later this month — is anxious to demonstrate how far it has progressed.

.

Delicious. A DOD front site from “eastern europe” using “media standards” to issue a veiled threat about Turkey’s admission to the EU. Awesome.

Will He Certify That It Is Accurate

Reader W sent in this interesting observation by one of Mark Kleiman’s readers:

Did you notice that our esteemed President essentially committed securities fraud in representing that private investment accounts WILL perform better than anything the present system could do? Certainly, no one can honestly make that statement and any stockbroker making such a statement would be violating Rule 10b 5 of the Securities Act of 1934.

To which Kleiman added:

Which reminds me of my favorite snarky policy suggestion: How about applying the Sarbanes-Oxley certification process to budget submissions and other communications from the Executive to Congress or the public? Someone ought to be prepared to say about each submission, “Yes, I understand what’s in this document, and certify that it is accurate.”

This is another good line of argument. I think it hits a certain common sense chord to say that the president is overselling the market, especially right now. People just went through a very thorough retrenchment with their 401k’s and are very well aware that the market does not always go up. We should force the Republicans to explain why people should feel confident that they are guaranteed to make more money in the market as Bush says they will. And after they sputter their bromides about the long term gains in the last 70 years, blah,blah,blah, perhaps the Democratic spokesperson or legislator ought to turn around and say “everyone knows past performance is no guarantor of future returns. It’s the most basic and essential disclaimer given by anyone who works with stocks and bonds.”

Since we are talking about exposing millions of retirees to the stock market, shouldn’t the president be willing to apply the same rules to himself and certify his proposal with the standard Oxley-Sarbanes disclaimer: “Yes, I understand what’s in this document, and certify that it is accurate.”

It would be an interesting television moment anyway.

DOD Payola

I think that CNN just reported that the DOD paid hundreds of “writers” to write for fake web sites. We’re not sure just who is involved though. (Wanna guess?)

My stars. Can it be true? Our government is using propaganda to influence foreigners? Say it ain’t so. Somebody get Jeff Jarvis some smelling salts, stat. He’s going to swoon the minute he hears about this…

Here’s the story:

Pentagon sites: Journalism or propaganda?

From Barbara Starr and Larry Shaughnessy

CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The U.S. Department of Defense plans to add more sites on the Internet to provide information to a global audience — but critics question whether the Pentagon is violating President Bush’s pledge not to pay journalists to promote his policies.

The Defense Department runs two Web sites overseas, one aimed at people in the Balkan region in Europe, the other for the Maghreb area of North Africa.

It is preparing another site, even as the Pentagon inspector general investigates whether the sites are appropriate.

The Web sites carry stories on subjects such as politics, sports and entertainment.

Information warfare

The sites are run by U.S. military troops trained in “information warfare,” a specialty than can include battlefield deception.

Pentagon officials say the goal is to counter “misinformation” about the United States in overseas media.

At first glance, the Web pages appear to be independent news sites. To find out who is actually behind the content, a visitor would have to click on a small link — at the bottom of the page — to a disclaimer, which says, in part, that the site is “sponsored by” the U.S. Department of Defense.

“There is an element of deception,” said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. “The problem,” he said, is that it looks like a news site unless a visitor looks at the disclaimer, which is “sort of oblique.”

The Pentagon maintains that the information on the sites is true and accurate. But in a recent memo, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz insisted that the Web site contractor should only hire journalists who “will not reflect discredit on the U.S. government.”

The Defense Department has hired more than 50 freelance writers for the sites.

Some senior military officers have told CNN the Web sites may clash with President Bush’s recent statements. “We will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda,” Bush told reporters on January 26. “Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet.”

Bush made those comments after it came to light that the administration had paid several commentators to support U.S. policies in the U.S. media.

Many Democrats have called for an end to what they call administration propaganda within the United States.

But many lawmakers view the rules for handling information overseas as a separate issue.

On Thursday, Lawrence Di Rita, the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, asked the Pentagon inspector general to examine Defense Department activities, including the Web sites in question, to see that they fall within the guidelines Bush laid out.

Di Rita said the department wanted “to make sure that we are staying well within the lines, and I believe we are.”

Rosenstiel said there is a reason why rules exist to separate journalism from government information. “Anytime that the government has to assure you, ‘Believe me, take my word for it, I’m telling you nothing but the truth,’ you know you should be worried,” he said.

According to Powerline, it’s CNN who is guilty of propaganda:

When Eason Jordan, chief news executive at CNN, groundlessly slanders the American armed forces by accusing them of “targeting” journalists for assassination, one could reasonably wonder whether he was engaged in journalism or propaganda. Many have also been wondering when the news side at CNN–as opposed to the public relations side–would start reporting on Jordan’s incendiary speech in Davos.

A reader pointed out that earlier today, CNN finally did address the issue of journalism vs. propaganda. You might think they’ve finally broken their silence about Mr. Jordan. But no! It’s the Pentagon CNN is accusing of putting out propaganda

[…]

There you have it: CNN spreads misinformation about the American military; but when the military tries to defend itself against misinformation, it’s “propaganda.” And, while it’s perfectly OK for CNN’s top newsman to “reflect discredit on the U.S. government,” CNN criticizes the Defense Department because DOD prefers not to do the same. This is the topsy-turvy world of the mainstream media.

Hohkay. Except, you know, government propaganda is a slightly different animal, isn’t it? The DOD is perfectly within its rights to put up a web site defending against misinformation. But these web sites are designed to look like “news sites” that are giving unbiased information. Call me crazy, but that just doesn’t seem like an upfront operation.

And it certainly will be interesting to see who these taxpayer funded “freelance” writers are, won’t it?

And whatever stupid thing Eason Jordan said, it doesn’t really fit the term “propaganda” very well. I’m sure they’ll say (absurdly) that it reflects the hatred of all things military in the liberal media, but unless there is a systematic intention to portray the military as assasinating journalists, then it’s really more of an off the cuff remark than actual propaganda. And, you know, it’s really hard to take seriously anyone who decries propaganda when Republican mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh are out there spewing eliminationist rhetoric about liberals to 20 million ditto-heads all day long.

Modern Scalawags

Let’s face facts. The extremely dishonest approach that the Republicans are taking to bring African Americans on board with their privatized personal retirement plan is just downright racist. I’m sure that the creationist right believes that the fact black men don’t live as long as whites is God’s intention but the truth is that they wouldn’t die younger if it weren’t for poverty, disease and crime which are immoral reasons in a rich country such as ours. It’s bad enough that this is happening today, but the administration is selling the idea as something that will continue for at least the next forty years as a selling point for destroying social security. It’s is another case of their outrageous pomo up-is-downism.

Farhad Manjoo has written a definitive piece on this issue for Salon (cute day pass today) in which he points out that the slack jawed media has gulped down the entire meme and is regurgitating it whole:

The idea that blacks are being cheated by Social Security could prove to be a powerful rhetorical weapon for Republicans. Already, the media is falling for the story line. CNN, for example, broadcast a heart-tugging story Thursday that focused on the plight of the dependents of African-Americans who die young. The network interviewed Barbara Haile, a black woman whose husband died of cancer in 1997. He was 50 at the time of his death; through payroll taxes, he’d been contributing to Social Security for about 30 years. But because he hadn’t reached retirement age, neither he (nor his dependents) were eligible to receive any money from Social Security.

Under the Bush plan, conservatives say, Haile would have been eligible to receive the money that her husband had been collecting in his “personal account,” invested in the stock market. Because blacks (especially black men) have lower average life expectancies than whites (especially white women), the current system is unfair to them, Republicans contend, and private accounts would be a boon for them. Although CNN did interview supporters of the current system, the emotional upshot of its report was clear: Social Security screws poor black people and President Bush wants to help them out.

There’s another side to this,too:

Anti-Social Security agitators such as Stephen Moore, who heads the Free Enterprise Fund, have taken to calling Social Security a “massive income redistribution program” that sucks money out of African-Americans’ pockets and spits it out to whites.

Agitator is the right word. The African American constituency isn’t going to fall for this nonsense. They’ve been handed this kind of flim-flam many times before and they are much too savvy to trust rich white men who try to dazzle them with BS. This stuff goes back a long, long way. Despite the fact that the history of reconstruction has been rightly revised to show that the “scalawags” of the era were not all despicable opportunists as they had been portrayed by southern apologists, it is true that there were southerners who used the newly freed slaves for their own political and profitable enterprises. Many African Americans may have been naive enough to believe their phony pitch one hundred years ago, but they aren’t naive anymore. Stephen Moore is spitting into the wind if he thinks black Americans can’t see through his little shuck and jive.

And they also aren’t idiots. They know that grandma needs that check:

In a Social Security briefing paper, Shelton declares that “almost 80 percent of African Americans over age 65 depend on Social Security for more than half of their income, and more than half rely on it for 90 percent or more of their income.” Basically, he writes, “without the guaranteed Social Security benefits they receive today, the poverty rate among older African Americans would more than double, pushing most African American seniors into squalor and poverty during their most vulnerable years.”

But the main problem with the Republicans’ argument that private accounts would be better for blacks than the current system is not that it’s economically wrong. It’s that it’s gravely pessimistic. As the president took pains to point out in his State of the Union address, Social Security reform won’t affect today’s generation of retirees; it will benefit today’s young people, who will retire 30 or 40 years from now. By that reasoning, conservatives are conceding that blacks will die young not only now but 40 years from now. Apparently, they aren’t concerned about working to ensure that young African-Americans live as long and healthy lives as today’s young white people.

Of course, that’s because the main purpose of this phony sales pitch isn’t really to gain the support of African Americans at all. These modern scalawags hope to gain the support of a few African Americans so that they can use their image to portray their plan as helping poor people.

This is racist on a number of levels, not the least of which is that the Bush administration has made a fetish of portraying themselves as “compassionate” toward the poor with images of adorable black children and high level tokenism. They know very well that the African American community is the most reliably Democratic constituency in the nation. They are not actually making a play for their votes. Their bogus imagery is racist because it has no substance in policy terms and is actually aimed at white suburban voters who mistrust the southern red-neck edge that defines the sound of the modern GOP.

This Social Security marketing campaign, however, takes it to an unprecedented level. The Republicans are trying to convince their suburban white voters that because blacks tend to die young from social causes (which they don’t intend to fix,) they will be “helping” poor blacks if they vote for a privatization scheme (that will cut their guaranteed benefits.) It just doesn’t get any more cynical than using white Americans’ compassion to hurt black Americans — or perhaps using phony white compassion to excuse hurting black Americans. This is low, even for them.

Here’s a little Rovian epistemic relativism for all those staunch Republican southern heritage and new confederacy types to have fun sorting out:

Today’s Republicans are modern scalawags who use blacks to get rich northern white votes. And just like the bad old days, you poor white fellas are going to get screwed too. Which side are you on, boys?