Media Bias: Not Liberal, Not Conservative

I commend to you an article in the January 25 issue of The New Yorker by Ken Auletta. I hope you will read it...and if you have time, read it again, because it contains the essence of the governing problem faced by today's leaders in Washington. Here's what Auletta says about the impact of the 24/7 news cycle:

"The news cycle is getting shorter -- to the point that there is no pause, only the constancy of the Web and the endless argument of cable. This creates pressure to entertain or perish, which has fed the media's dominant bias: not pro-liberal or pro-conservative but pro-conflict."

When the goal is not to inform or illuminate but to stir the pot of "conflict" constantly, there is little room for reasoned heads to be heard, understood, and God forbid, followed.

I know. The media are a favorite whipping boy for those in power who don't like what is being said about them. But this is different. This is the continuing and growing cacophony of uninformed voices coming at us from a thousand directions -- some with an ax to grind (NRA, NARAL, etc.) and some just seeking to entertain (Limbaugh, Beck, etc.).

The Internet has opened the flood gates and now everyone is a "Presidential Advisor." The power they have found is sometimes incomprehensible to those who only recently have discovered how to use their blog, their Twitter account, Facebook, YouTube, etc. But just because they are there does not mean we should listen to them, must less adopt their point of view. If anything, it means we should read all of it with the largest grain of salt we can find and use our heads to think through as carefully as we can what the truth is and what the next course of action should be for our leaders, our government, ourselves.

Several years ago, a lady slipped by the telephone screeners on the Rush Limbaugh show (she was not the typical sycophant that let on the air) and she caught him in an outright lie, a total contradiction of the facts and she knew it, he knew it and it was clear to the audience that he had lied, too. He gave that now trademarked Limbaugh chuckle, "heh, heh," and finally said to her, "Madam, you must remember, this is only entertainment.

Trouble is, Rush, governing is not entertainment, serving the people's best interest is not entertainment, and to put it in terms you might more easily understand, love of country is not entertainment, it is our duty.

This genie is so far out of the bottle, the genie has forgotten where he put the bottle...and as a result, I fear for our country.

The gridlock in Washington has been imposed upon it by the people -- the people who were supposed to elect representatives to go to Washington and vote their best judgment when issues were laid before them. But now, we don't permit them to fulfill that duty. Instead we use the various communications tools at our disposal to tell them, and tell them over and over, loudly, how to vote and what we are going to do to them if they don't vote today exactly how we feel they should vote today. That is not the representative republic envisioned by our founding fathers. It is not!

What the Supreme Court Did Today

Here's what your Supreme Court did today according to a report just received from the New York Times:

The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that corporations may spend
freely to support or oppose candidates for president and
Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in
federal campaigns.

Here's what it means:

Any nut case CEO with his hands on his company's treasury can dip into unlimited sums of money from the corporate treasury to support a candidate.  that makes you contribution of $100 non-existent to the body politic and any one's contribution of $1,000 or even $5,000 totally insignificant in the eyes of an elected official. Such unbridled, unrestricted corporate influence over the ignorant and uninformed voter will no doubt lead in the near future to electing candidates on the order of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and yes, perhaps even another George Bush.  Good luck, America!

The Power! Who's Got the Power?

I had lunch yesterday with a Republican friend who told me his wife has been diagnosed with a serious illness and although the doctors caught it early, the immediate future is full of tests and uncertainties. “At least we will Medicare,” he said. “She turns 65 in the summer and will be covered by Medicare for most of her treatment.”

“But,” I said, “You and your party were opposed to Medicare; it was and is a socialist program, don’t forget. It is unacceptable.”

“Yeah, well, I’m glad we failed,” my Republican friend said, smiling..

Today, I wouldn’t blame President Obama if he pulled the health care bill under consideration and told Republicans and those who think they might be Republican, “You’re on your own. When the insurance companies keep raising premiums by 18-20% a year, you’re on your own. When you can’t find a doctor who takes Medicare patients, you’re on your own. When you find you must stop buying bread to assure the pharmaceutical companies enjoy 400% profit on life saving drugs, you’re on your own.”

“Well, wait a minute,” said the Republican. “I don’t think he ought to go that far. We do need health care reform, just not Obama’s health care reform.”

The election in Massachusetts yesterday notwithstanding, the current debate is NOT about health care reform or whether it has done secretively or heavy handed, etc.

IT IS ABOUT THE POWER – ONLY THE POWER. DEMOCRATS HAVE IT; REPUBLICANS DON’T…AND THAT IS SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE TO THE REPUBLICANS. Therefore, they object to everything, even much needed health care reform, because THEY MUST HAVE THE POWER BACK. NEVER MIND THE PEOPLE. “WHO CARES ABOUT THE PEOPLE? WHO CARES ABOUT GOVERNING? WE DON’T. WE MUST HAVE THE POWER.”

The truth is our government depends on shared power in order to succeed. I am now convinced the best arrangement of votes in the Senate is 50 Democrats, 50 Republicans. Such balance promotes a bipartisan approach to every issue. Nothing will pass, in other words without a few votes from the other side, and that is always a good thing.

When we have 60 votes in one party, or 70, there is no incentive for the minority to work with the majority. Their view is they have nothing to gain in such an imbalance and therefore, to oppose everything, regardless of how much the country might benefit, is to help restore the balance they seek, if not the power they crave.

The filibuster exists to protect the views of the minority from being steamrolled by an unbridled majority. It works. The Republicans are enjoying its use today. But they are a shortsighted bunch. When they get back in power – and they will – they will try again to get rid of the filibuster rule, because it will again block their attempts to control all aspects of government. That’s not a representative democracy, that’s a dictatorship which they would know if they ever read the Constitution.

Not enough of the American people understand how the Republican party manipulates their thinking with their Simple Simon approach to complex issues.

“Just balance the federal budget; I have to balance mine at home.” (Yes but you are not responsible for the welfare and common defense of 322 million people.)

“Banks got their bailout, where’s mine?” (You got yours when the banks did not go belly up. If government had let them sink in their own mire, you would be out of a job not just for a few months, but for many years.)

“Government is just too big. We need to vote for someone who will reduce it.” (We are not a nation of 4 million people anymore. Our government will never be small again because it must, of necessity, grow in order to meet the needs of 322 million people. It is pure demagoguery to suggest we can succeed with a smaller government or by cutting taxes without a commensurate cut in spending. In addition to promoting the common welfare here at home, our government takes the lead in solving political disputes worldwide and meeting every natural disaster worldwide with immediate assistance, because we are an interrelated community of souls on this planet and our Judeo-Christian ethic teaches us we are our neighbor’s keeper. Knowing that, almost all other nations on this planet look to us for global leadership.

So, this is not about the defeat of the Democratic woman in Massachusetts or the election of the most junior Republican member of the US Senate. This is about the power. This is not about the people, as it should be. This is about the power. And that, to me, is very sad. We cannot survive for very long unless we change that view by electing new members who have actually read the Constitution and understand their role is to represent the best interests of the people, not their own, not their party, not some narrow interest – but the people’s interest.

Where is the reason?

Martha Coakley is a fundamentally flawed candidate. The latest gaffe has her criticizing her opponent for shaking hands outside Fenway Park. Not even the rankest of amateurs would make that mistake. Not even Sarah Palin would make that kind of mistake. Regrettably, the Democrats will lose this seat.

What does it mean for the current debate on health care reform?

The people want health care reform. The Republicans in Washington want health care reform. (Yes, that is not a typo. The Rs really do want health care reform; they just don't want to tell you that -- ever.) The people, however, are being told by the Republicans that the current bill in conference is the wrong one. And that is too bad...because now –with the loss of Martha Coakley in MA— a bill may not pass with the coverage of the original and the regulatory structure needed to make it work.

Make no mistake about it: the Rs want this bill. They want it to pass without their vote so they can campaign against it and complain about it for at least a full decade. The Democrats have to have the stomach to see this through one way or the other, even if it costs them seats. The Rs never wanted Social Security; the Rs never wanted Medicare for the elderly. The Rs, indeed, never want any basic reform that "promotes the general welfare" of the people. They want the Democrats to vote such measures through so they can sit back and yell "no" from the back bench where they are most comfortable. If we reach the day where the yelled "no" carries the day, well.....I hope we never reach that day.

No one, I repeat NO ONE wants to repeal Social Security; no one wants to repeal Medicare. We did not become a socialist state when they passed in 1935 and 1965, respectively, and we will not become a socialist state when health care reform is passed into law this year …or whenever. I just want reason to prevail. Is that too much to ask?