![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
barking_iguanaSome tool commenting in a journal I read said the media is openly supporting Obama while feigning neutrality. Nonsense. But I understand why it looks like it to folks who are used to facts not mattering.
In 1981, astroturfed outrage against the media caused them to shut up about Reagan's very frequent assertions that simply weren't true. (Whether Reagan knew they were untrue and was therefore lying is immaterial to the media's behavior.) Most campaigns frequently tell one side of a story, tell anecdotes out of context, and occasionally say things that are unequivocally false. But with Reagan, the unequivocally false wasn't occasional, it was constant.
The GOP then learned that while working the refs and ignoring reality was a necessity that worked with Reagan, whose fabrications were integral to his personality, it could also work for any other GOP politician whose fabrications could now be a more effective choice.
The Democrats have never been nearly as effective at using that strategy on the national level. (There are machine-run cities where they are so successful, with city employees playing the role that dittoheads do for the GOP nationally.) You could argue that's because the Democrats have more faith that theirs are the positions closer to the voters' (issue polling generally shows that to be true) so they think they don't need to. You could argue that Democrats tend to have more respect for civic life in general, and therefore see a greater cost in creating a culture of lies. You could argue that Democrats tend more to be the personality types who in high school were more likely to be the subject of whispered slander than the perpetrators and are therefore simply less practiced at the art.
But for whatever reasons (I think all of the above play a role) the national Democratic model has been a nerdy reliance on the facts (at least by comparison to the GOP) rather than the successfully executed pep-rally model of the GOP.
McCain, at least by comparison to other Republicans, was an exception. If you put his pre-2001 behavior into the Democratic Party, he'd be in the sleazier half of the party, like Jack Murtha or Rahm Emanuel. But to the media, which was used to but never really liked having to pretend the GOP wasn't telling bald-faced lies, McCain was a breath of fresh air.
Now, with McCain acting like a true Ailes/Atwater/Rove Republican, the media feels betrayed. And they're not going to cover for him as much as they covered for others, because they know he can (or at least could) do better. He's getting treated just as harshly as a Democrat would if the Democrat tried to pull the same nonsense. And after a quarter century of getting a free pass, when you're used to the refs calling a game like you're the Harlem Globetrotters and the other guys are the Washington Generals, fair play seems like a raw deal.
But the thing is, the media still likes McCain. If he would go back to his middlingly ethical behavior, they'd be fawning all over him, just as they have for most of his career. But his strategist believe (correctly, I think) that he would not win sticking close to the truth, even with the media on his side. And as has always been the case throughout his political career, McCain's ambition is stronger than any of his other attributes.
BTW, it's not that there's no merit in GOP positions. I often find while listening to conservative and GOP advocates speak that I wish I could break in and give the real case for what they're proposing. But they don't give the real reasons, because 9 times out of 10, the real case is insufficient to sway most folks who don't stand to gain disproportionately from what is being proposed.
In 1981, astroturfed outrage against the media caused them to shut up about Reagan's very frequent assertions that simply weren't true. (Whether Reagan knew they were untrue and was therefore lying is immaterial to the media's behavior.) Most campaigns frequently tell one side of a story, tell anecdotes out of context, and occasionally say things that are unequivocally false. But with Reagan, the unequivocally false wasn't occasional, it was constant.
The GOP then learned that while working the refs and ignoring reality was a necessity that worked with Reagan, whose fabrications were integral to his personality, it could also work for any other GOP politician whose fabrications could now be a more effective choice.
The Democrats have never been nearly as effective at using that strategy on the national level. (There are machine-run cities where they are so successful, with city employees playing the role that dittoheads do for the GOP nationally.) You could argue that's because the Democrats have more faith that theirs are the positions closer to the voters' (issue polling generally shows that to be true) so they think they don't need to. You could argue that Democrats tend to have more respect for civic life in general, and therefore see a greater cost in creating a culture of lies. You could argue that Democrats tend more to be the personality types who in high school were more likely to be the subject of whispered slander than the perpetrators and are therefore simply less practiced at the art.
But for whatever reasons (I think all of the above play a role) the national Democratic model has been a nerdy reliance on the facts (at least by comparison to the GOP) rather than the successfully executed pep-rally model of the GOP.
McCain, at least by comparison to other Republicans, was an exception. If you put his pre-2001 behavior into the Democratic Party, he'd be in the sleazier half of the party, like Jack Murtha or Rahm Emanuel. But to the media, which was used to but never really liked having to pretend the GOP wasn't telling bald-faced lies, McCain was a breath of fresh air.
Now, with McCain acting like a true Ailes/Atwater/Rove Republican, the media feels betrayed. And they're not going to cover for him as much as they covered for others, because they know he can (or at least could) do better. He's getting treated just as harshly as a Democrat would if the Democrat tried to pull the same nonsense. And after a quarter century of getting a free pass, when you're used to the refs calling a game like you're the Harlem Globetrotters and the other guys are the Washington Generals, fair play seems like a raw deal.
But the thing is, the media still likes McCain. If he would go back to his middlingly ethical behavior, they'd be fawning all over him, just as they have for most of his career. But his strategist believe (correctly, I think) that he would not win sticking close to the truth, even with the media on his side. And as has always been the case throughout his political career, McCain's ambition is stronger than any of his other attributes.
BTW, it's not that there's no merit in GOP positions. I often find while listening to conservative and GOP advocates speak that I wish I could break in and give the real case for what they're proposing. But they don't give the real reasons, because 9 times out of 10, the real case is insufficient to sway most folks who don't stand to gain disproportionately from what is being proposed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 09:00 pm (UTC)I do think John McCain’s ambition exceeds his capacity, especially now that he seems to have become too old to learn effectively.