The Mainstream Mafia
– excuse me, Media – oblivious to
their own death throes and their glaring irrelevancy in contemporary American political
discourse, continue to fawn over President Barack Obama and his second inaugural
address of January 21st. They behave as though everyone in the
nation were breathlessly glued to CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC, Washington Week, Face the
Nation and PBS’s variety show of round table analytical yak fests. The MSM
erroneously presume that the nation receives their dollops of wisdom from them.
The truth is that even Obama’s supporters and worshippers rely less on what the
MSM have to say and more on Internet news outlets, as well as on Twitter and
Face Book, where they can “inter-react” with each other and play virtual
paddy cake with their Progressive/Marxist idols.
they set the terms of the discourse. Let’s examine some examples. Keep in mind
that these are all from a left-wing perspective.
of the Washington Post broke out her rosary or worry beads and fretted over how
The One will accomplish all he has set out to do during his second term. Also keep
in mind that, to The One and his titillated throngs of admirers, there are no
such things as “absolutes,”
except the “absolute” of the moment, which must be “seized”
and made an absolute before it fluxes into something distasteful. After scoring
Obama on the “blustery naiveté” of his first inaugural address, she
Obama of the second
inaugural address was simultaneously more realistic and more confident. He
spoke like a man who, in the course of four long years, has developed a far
sharper vision of the role of government: first, “that preserving
our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action”; second,
that “our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a
growing many barely make it.”
of those assertions may or may not have escaped Marcus. But they are definitely
Marxist, and more and more liberals are admitting it. “This was a speech
that tilted decidedly to the left, far more so than four years ago.” Left,
but not Marxist.
Post resident tyro, Harold Meyerson,
crowed that Obama’s majority is now everyone’s majority, even if everyone didn’t
show up on the Mall to “witness history.” He, too, forgives Obama for
his narcissistic and tautologically confusing words in 2008.
aftermath of Obama’s 2012 reelection and his second
inaugural address, his 2008 remarks seem less a statement of
self-absorption than one of prophecy. There is an Obama majority in American
politics, symbolized by Monday’s
throng on the Mall, whose existence is both the consequence of profound
changes to our nation’s composition and values and the cause of changes yet to
a bizarre menagerie of groups “from Seneca Falls and Selma and
Stonewall” that represent Obama’s constituency, not the nation’s majority.
Meyerson, too, waits breathlessly for him to cause “changes yet to
come.” Meyerson takes a swipe at Obama’s principled and absolutist
Obama argued, is one of adapting our ideals to a changing world. His speech
(like recent books
by Michael Lind and my Post colleague E.J.
Dionne Jr.) reclaimed U.S. history from the misrepresentations of both
constitutional originalists and libertarian fantasists. “Fidelity to our
founding principles requires new responses to new challenges,” the president
said. “Preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective
action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world
by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or
communism with muskets and militias.”
Well, just throw
out those copies of The Federalist Papers,
The Anti-Federalist Papers, all those
interminable scribblings of Jefferson, Madison, Mason, Henry, and even of
Hamilton. They had their absolutes. We have ours. Besides, they were just a
bunch of privileged white
men with bones to pick with tyranny. Reality changes absolutes. Freedom is
slavery, don’t you know?
readings of Meyerson, individual freedoms are not obliterated by “collective
action” – that is, by organized and channeled mob rule – but somehow
remain in force, somewhere, somehow, but, don’t bother him with
causo-connections. And one supposes that he has never read Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which the
reigning Party rewrote history twenty-four hours a day to counter the
“misrepresentations of both constitutional originalists and libertarian
fantasists.” There are no “absolutes,”
just the “will of the people” who somehow establish absolutes by
picking them out of the thin air with some guidance from the administration and
university professors and the Supreme Court and the ACLU, and then hand them to
Obama, saying, “Here’s your mandate. Where’s my stuff?”
Meyerson. The nation is in a rotten mood, that is, that part of it fed up with
the fascist populism and mob rule and the arrogance of a man who thinks he’s
God’s or Nature’s gift to the masses. The time will come – and there are bellwether
stirrings among the newly disenfranchised of the middle class, the rich, the
constitutionalists, the originalists, the “libertarian fantasists” –
when men will take up their illegal muskets and semiautomatics and oppose the
mobs and SWAT teams and the OWS Stoßtruppen. You will call them
“reactionaries” or “flunkies of the old order” or
“running dogs of the offshore wealthy.” They will call themselves
revolutionaries. They will be wearing the tricorns of old and brandishing
banners that proclaim, “Tread on me no longer” and “Disperse, or
die, so we can live free.”
scenario: They will go on strike, à la
is timidly lifting its veil and admitting to itself, after all these years,
that Obama is Marxist. Jennifer Schuessler,
in “A Young Publisher Takes Marx Into the Mainstream,” celebrates the
founding of a blatantly Marxist publication, Jacobin. Hailing the founder,
Bhaskar Sunkara, as an example of an unexpurgated activist journalist, she
during a medical leave from his sophomore year at George Washington University,
Mr. Sunkara turned to Plan B: creating a magazine dedicated to bringing jargon-free neo-Marxist thinking to the masses.
some brave soul decided to dispense with the dissembling verisimilitude of left/liberal
Aunt Hildegard and her Gray Lady Progressive code-talkers and speak frankly in
resulting magazine, Jacobin, whose ninth issue just landed, has certainly been
an improbable hit, buoyed by the radical stirrings of the Occupy movement and a
bitingly satirical but serious-minded style. Since its debut in September 2010
it has attracted nearly 2,000 print and digital subscribers, some 250,000 Web
hits a month, regular name-checks from prominent bloggers, and book deals from
two New York publishers.
“the masses”? The nation’s
unemployed? The food stamp brigade? The battalions of single-parent welfare
recipients? Is Jacobin destined to
replace The Village Voice and Rolling Stone? Why the curious name,
“Jacobin”? During the French Revolution, the Jacobin Club was a
far-left organization that demanded ideological purity from the central government,
in this case, “pure” democracy. Or, unchecked mob rule. Off with
their heads! That doesn’t refer to the command of Lewis Carroll’s Queen of Hearts,
but to Charles Dickens’ Madame Defarge.
the magazine was also attracting attention from more established figures on the
left, who saw it as raising fundamental questions that had been off the table
since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Corey Robin, an associate professor of
political science at Brooklyn College who became a contributing editor last
winter, pointed in particular to articles by Mr. Ackerman and Peter Frase,
another early Jacobin recruit, debating the possibility of a post-capitalist
economy involving, among other things, drastically reduced working hours.
people are not working or already getting wages subsidized by the state — maybe
there’s something already at play that we haven’t paid enough attention to,”
Mr. Robin said.
been paying attention to is the creeping statism and increments of fascist
economics, disguised as unadulterated socialism. And, in a
“post-capitalist economy” (and the U.S. has never had a wholly
“capitalist” economy), “drastically reduced working hours”
are for millions translating into no
working hours. But, that’s all right with Robin. It would be ideal for him if
everyone had state-subsidized wages, even if most of them weren’t working at
all. They have a right to security and dignity, you see.
is tiptoeing up to the truth. Yes. Obama is a “progressive” and a
of downplaying ideological labels for Barack Obama, ABC has seemingly accepted
the idea that the President is a “progressive” and a
“liberal.” While recapping the inauguration, Good Morning
America’s journalists used the terms four times in just two minutes and 45
seconds. Yet, when Obama was a Democratic primary candidate in 2007, the
networks deployed the L-word
just twice – in the entire year.
“L-word” is now acceptable in polite political discourse among, well,
liberals. “Progressive”? All that can mean is to “progress”
forward. The contemptible “C-word,”
“conservative, was repeatedly
pronounced with sneers and jutting lower lips, meaning to its speakers to regress, or move backward, that in turn being synonymous with (however erroneously
among conservatives and progressives)
absolutist notions of individual rights, original meanings of the Constitution,
the sanctity of private property, and even gun ownership.
Center provided a transcript of some of the unprecedented exchange among George
Stephanopoulos and Jon Karl, as they assured themselves that Obama will kiss
our wounds and make everything all right.
STEPHANOPOULOS: We’re going to turn to President Obama now, and what’s in store
for the second term after yesterday’s inaugural. The speech, a call to action, an uncompromising enunciation of liberal
principles. The question, now, what can actually get done on those big
issue like gun control, gay rights and climate change? ABC’s Jon Karl has more on that from the White House. And, Jon, liberals
were cheering yesterday. Republicans, not so much.
that, he invited all Americans to celebrate the changing landscape of American
montage): We have always understood that
when times change, so must we. But preserving our individual freedom ultimately
requires collective action.
agenda, promising action on climate change, equal pay for women and
montage): Progress does not compel us to
settle the centuries-long debates about the role of government for all-time.
But it does require us to act in our time.
of politics. They look like meat, feel like meat, even taste like meat. But really
aren’t meat. Or absolutes. They can change. The centuries of bickering are
over. The debate stops now, in
“our time.” It’s settled political science, just as man-caused global
warming is settled science. Obama promises to do something about that, too,
even if it means emulating King Canute and commanding the sun to stop affecting
the weather. Government is the end-all and be-all of all things. It alone can
move men “forward.” It alone can “Organize for
“organized” or to move “forward,” please leave the room. Outside,
give the nice TSA man your shoe size, be prepared to be measured for your