Can the People Change American Politics?
I have a running debate with a very dear friend of mine. She is a Republican and I am a Democrat. We agree on most everything else except politics.
We do have heated debates sometimes and sometimes we can actually agree on some things.
We always have a good conversation and we respect each other.
I think we can have a good conversation in this country about politics and where we are headed as a nation. Way too often though, people are so angry that it gets nasty and defeats the whole
purpose of having an exchange of ideas.
Should the rich get richer on the backs of the middle class?
Should our tax money go toward programs that aren't working
and that don't seem to help the poor?
Where is the debate? I suppose we could watch C-SPAN and see it, but
very few people do that.
The media should get the facts out to the people and still stay objective.
It can be done. But many people are getting to the point where they just do
not trust the journalists.
Who are the most objective journalists out there?
posted by Sandy Trupp @ 12:12 PM
13 Comments:
The rich keep getting rivher on the backs of the middle calss and the poor. And the sad thing is they don't even know it. They think Bush is like one of them.
Bush never had a day without a good meal.
The poor just seem to want to please their abusers. It's sick.
I think that the media gives us a very good idea of what the news is. They can't be responsible for the way people translate it.
You just can't beleive the news anymore. I don't. I like cable because i can make up my mind on things.
I just read that the religious right is startig a campaign against Hillary's run for president.
What ever happened to free speech?
And is the spreading of freedopm really the spreading of religion?
All of this is just a distraction fomr the way Bush is handling the job. Yes hillary is barasive, but I wish we ahd health insurance like the right-wing government has.
This administration acts and governs in the classic pattern of all dictatorial regimes: Win power by any means necessary; loot the treasury; enrich the parasitic owners of power who support the regime; govern by deception and fear. Economic considerations: enhance the wealthy power brokers to the exclusion of the less powerful, and create class conflict through social institutions such as the church. The creation of class warfare sets the wealthy apart and pressures the poor to attack the middle classes out of fear and envy.
This is part of Karl Rove's textbook, written on the grave of his mentor, Lee Attwater, perhaps the most ruthless politician of the 20th century. Attack is the primary instrument of policy. Always attack, and never allow the attack to be traced directly back to the seat of power; thus, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Always carry forward "anger points," that is, wedge issues such as gay marriage; these anger points distract the public and allow the power brokers to succeed in attaining an aggressive,society-altering agenda.
Follow the money. This is key. Fascist regimes throughout history have learned this strategy and have succeeded, usually with disastrous results. Benito Mussolini, the fascist dictator of Italy during WWII, defined fascism as "the joining of the might of military forces with the wealth and influence of industrial power." Sound familiar?
OK, enough of my historical lecture. If we don't get it, then I'm afraid we're got!
This administration acts and governs in the classic pattern of all dictatorial regimes: Win power by any means necessary; loot the treasury; enrich the parasitic owners of power who support the regime; govern by deception and fear. Economic considerations: enhance the wealthy power brokers to the exclusion of the less powerful, and create class conflict through social institutions such as the church. The creation of class warfare sets the wealthy apart and pressures the poor to attack the middle classes out of fear and envy.
This is part of Karl Rove's textbook, written on the grave of his mentor, Lee Attwater, perhaps the most ruthless politician of the 20th century. Attack is the primary instrument of policy. Always attack, and never allow the attack to be traced directly back to the seat of power; thus, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Always carry forward "anger points," that is, wedge issues such as gay marriage; these anger points distract the public and allow the power brokers to succeed in attaining an aggressive,society-altering agenda.
Follow the money. This is key. Fascist regimes throughout history have learned this strategy and have succeeded, usually with disastrous results. Benito Mussolini, the fascist dictator of Italy during WWII, defined fascism as "the joining of the might of military forces with the wealth and influence of industrial power." Sound familiar?
OK, enough of my historical lecture. If we don't get it, then I'm afraid we're got!
I don't even know who the objective journalists are anymore. Everyone has an agenda it seems--even those that aren't so obvious like Fox News Channel is. It's a herd mentality and difficult to dicipher. It's a one story media circus with opinions thrown in in reporting. C-Span is objective because there is no commentary. I think Americans like commentary though.
Everyone seems way right or way, left and very few seem to be in the middle--at least on TV. (although the right seems to be more out there on TV) However, the majority of Americans are moderates. Where are their voices? Or more importantly where are the actions that will help most Americans. Right or left, we all want decent healthcare, a retirement plan, to raise our kids healthy and educated, to have a home, take some vacations, have a job we like, be able to provide for ourselves and our families. We're so lucky to have the freedom we have but I just don't see this country evolving. And we need to evolve to get past surviving and thrive. And set an example for the world. We're trying to "spread freedom" but we have so many people in this country who aren't really free.
Somehow these basic needs and wants we all have have evolved into a buncho of talk from extremes on both sides.
Sad. That is how I feel for our country right now. Sad.
The media spectacle is owned by the ruling classes. The only way to get a true picture of things is to look for alternative sources of news. Even the Al Jazerah network is ultimately in alignment with what we think of as a western media perspective. Nevertheless you may want to checkout their news feed to get a feel of a slightly alternate perspective produced by a mainstream media outlet.
Of course the best thing to do is get all your news from non-media sources like blogs or socially minded organizations web sites.
I've also found that BBC has an interesting take on world news and is more objective.
In lieu of being negative about America, we should probably get back on track with the original discussion question. The debate was initiated by the question: Can People Change American Politics? People have been changing the landscape of politics in this country since the Revolution. We live in a Democratic society, unlike any number of other countries, and that democracy resonates with every election, local, statewide or nationally.
The other question, who are the best journalists and can we trust our news sources? is a different debate. Watching old television news clips from the '50s and '60s is an eye-opener. Completely bereft of any personal commentary, inappropriate emoting, provocative word-choice or the inclusion of irrelevant facts in order to influence the audience, newscasters of yesteryear got it right. Just give the facts. Today, "journalists" often present facts that are packaged in such a way that influence the audience. This is done on purpose. Newsies understand that their audience is either too busy to decipher editorial comments within the presentation and often the viewer walks away with the opinion of the reporter, not their own. The viewer is at fault because they are too preoccupied to listen. This is also a reflection of the lack of our collective intellectualism (people don't read, don't ask questions) not to mention the fact that our communication skills have eroded over time. We are generally terrible listeners and evidently pay very little attention to the subtle, influenctial nuances in news reports. Dan Rather and his crew, along with others, have been cloaking their news reports in various, skillful techniques for years. The last attempt was just a complete folly finally revealing the 'man behind the curtain.' Of the current broadcasters that are reliable (even when they opine), Chris Matthews, Cokie Roberts, George Stephanopolis, Tim Russert, John Stossel among others. In terms of unfiltered coverage, C-SPAN is by far the best. BBC offers a refreshing world-view of stories not covered in the American press, liberal or conservative (isn't it scary that we think we have to now label newsoutlets this way?). Which leads us to another potential blog topic: with all the news out there, why are the big three and cable channels all covering the same stories at the same time and watching each other's coverage while even bigger stories are happening elsewhere? I recommend reading news in US News and World Report, various newspapers, Newsweek, etc. and then drawing one's own conclusions. Print reporters have more time and space to create a good story. In addition, I say listen to NPR and then tune into Rush Limbaugh. It's important to know and understand both sides to make an informed decision. Having a political view is not a shallow venture - it is a responsibility. And as for the person who compared the current Administration to Mussolini, well, the good news is because of a sometimes unpopular, hardline of some American politicians, we don't have goosestepping morons coming into our bedrooms at night to arrest us for just existing; we're able to go to work without worrying about carbombs or someone eavesdropping in our cubicle or having government sanctioned video cameras in the ladies room. We're able to vote freely in an election and protest peacefully. Of course, we have poor, hungry families. But at least in the U.S. people can stand in soup kitchen lines or get groceries from organizations because the government doesn't divert food or medicine for the needy. Try that in Angola and some other torn countries. Bitterness is not becoming and it doesn't foster productive communication. Communism doesn't work - take an advanced course in the study of Russian politics and economics and find out why. It makes us feel better to toss out words about rich vs. poor but it's not that simple. Our government 'systems' are corrupted and complex, our entitlement programs need updating and benchmarking. No one party is at fault for that. Get with it.
The people can change American politics by continuing to care about what happens in their local, state and national governments. If parents and teachers enforce the importance of the "voice" that Americans have in their government then our children will learn that each and every person makes a difference.
I could not say who are the best journalists. What I will say is that journalism has changed dramatically in the past 20 years. At one time it was unacceptable to quote "an insider at the White House" as a credible source. As the rules change, journalists must keep up to be able to remain competitive in today's market.
What we must do is be courageous enough to write Op Ed's if we have a strong opinion or attend local government meetings or even open congressional hearings to offer our voice.
Our voice is our greatest asset and a true example of American freedom.
I don't believe in the objectivity of any journalists. The country is polarized- everyone has a view and these views seep into the reporting. Some, however are more objective than others. I trust the BBC a hell of lot more than I trust FOX news. I read everything, and make up my own mind. The day for trusting the networks news outlets (and CNN for that matter) are long gone.
Post a Comment
<< Home