|
||
President Obama Versus the CW Machine, Round One
A striking fact about the current political environment is that despite the ground-breaking Democratic victory on November 4th - whose seeds were planted by progressive online activists - the new administration is dealing with an oddly familiar political brew: the "liberal media" mantra is rekindled, conservative talk radio (i.e. anti-liberal radio) is resurgent, Rush Limbaugh is more relevant than ever, Ann Coulter is once again doing the network rounds, and if online commentary over the past month is any indication, many progressives still feel disconnected from the levers of power.
The assumption that the new presidency would transform the political process, usher in an era of unprecedented citizen empowerment and decimate the old conventional wisdom-making machinery, has been undermined by the reality of entrenched power structures, deep-seated rivalries, die-hard habits and Beltway business as usual.
That's not to say that the election of President Obama isn't momentous - it is - nor is it meant to detract from the astonishing advances in the use of technology to enhance voter participation. And certainly from a policy perspective, we've already seen tangible results of a Democratic presidency, from Gitmo to SCHIP to Lilly Ledbetter to an inspiring and long-overdue bluntness about the obscenities of executive compensation. [I remarked in a recent post that the first week of Obama's presidency was as surreal as the first week of Bush's, one for the departure from sane government, the other for the return to it.]
Things have changed. But the dynamics and tensions of the past decade remain firmly in play: rightwing noise machine (albeit denuded) versus progressive activists, old-school pundits and politicians versus online powerhouses, netroots versus DLC, frustrated outsiders versus back-scratching insiders, partisanship versus bi/post-partisanship, media versus bloggers, and so on. This isn't entirely surprising: political mechanisms change, human nature doesn't.
Which brings me to the point of this post: President Obama's Internet acumen - and that of his advisers - won't protect him from the formidable Conventional Wisdom Machine. I'll take as my starting point a piece from Chris Cillizza in which he offers a counterintuitive take on events of the past week. Counterintuitive in the sense that the week has not played out according to the script he elucidates, a script, it should be noted, that has lots of credence among political observers:
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama and his team learned a very important lesson that they are seeking to put into practice in the White House: the power of the media is overrated. Time and again during the campaign, Obama used his burgeoning grassroots army -- now more than 13 million email addresses strong -- to push out the message that he wanted to dominate the day rather than the message the media was focused on. Utilizing You Tube and a variety of other social networking media, Obama was able to speak directly to his supporters and, as importantly, to undecided voters about the issues of the day.
That strategy has carried over in the White House, the most striking example of which has been the use of YouTube to turn a non-news event -- the weekly Saturday radio address -- into a newsmaker. And this week, in the midst of a self-inflicted mini-crisis regarding the withdrawals of Nancy Killefer and Tom Daschle, Obama was at it again. In an email -- with an accompanying YouTube video from Obama -- campaign manager David Plouffe urged support for the president's economic stimulus plan. "You can help make sure the American people have all the facts so they can support this crucial effort to boost our struggling economy," wrote Plouffe. "The President is leading. Help is on the way."
Because of Obama's reach -- 13 million email addresses is a stunning number -- these sorts of tactics (Daschle? Daschle who?) have the potential to quickly re-focus the American public on the economic stimulus package rather than allow people to linger on the Daschle withdrawal and what it says about Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and the president's judgment more broadly. All of that is not to say the media doesn't have a role to play. But, Obama has a unique ability to end-run the media filter and use technology to make it stick.
In reality, events have unfolded very differently. That's not surprising; the role of the web has been misstated in the campaign and it is being overestimated in the post-campaign period. On TechPrez, Zephyr Teachout makes an important point regarding the latter:
Organizing for America sent out a request for house parties today, asking people to watch a video about Obama's economic recovery plan, talk about it with their friends, and build support for it. While there will be tweaks, this is the kind of action we can anticipate from OFA. I predict that there will be perhaps a thousand of such parties, then hundreds, then dozens. I think OFA will fail in its mission to directly engage Obama supporters in supporting Obama's executive actions. And I think this is a very good thing.
It will fail because Obama--suiting a President--is not oppositional, conflict-driven, and not likely to pick out particular targets to be won over--all things that are likely to engage people. It will fail because it is from OFA, not from Obama. And it will fail because OFA cannot be a new democratic party, but will have a hard time defining what it is, and what kind of real power ought exist at every level of the organization.
This is a good thing because it is not intended to be a representative organization, where people have real power.
In a piece where I argued that the only truly revolutionary aspect of the Internet in the 2008 campaign was the emerging power of the online commentariat I wrote, "the truth is that the Obama campaign was a triumph of integration more than technological innovation. It was the wildly successful marriage of time-tested political strategies and tactics, executed with acumen and discipline, seamlessly combined with cutting-edge technology and tied together with an empowering grassroots message. With a brilliant candidate at the helm."
What I left out of that description is the relationship of Obama and other candidates to the media during the 2008 race. Among many other things they did well, the Obama team surfed two cresting media/Internet waves, an anti-Clinton wave and an anti-Bush wave. Lest the point be misconstrued as blaming the media for Clinton's loss or as a criticism of the Obama team, it's neither. The Obama campaign expertly utilized the media environment to their advantage, maximized their strengths, minimized their weaknesses, targeted their opponents' vulnerabilities and wielded their grassroots empowerment message as a potent communications weapon.
The deftness with which Obama handled media relations and managed public perceptions has complicated the typical media bias equation, both from the right and left. Conservatives now trumpet a newly rejuvenated 'liberal media' argument, but they need only look at some of the reprehensible coverage of Hillary Clinton to rethink their point. Furthermore, those who argue that there is an unmistakable pro-Obama tilt in the media should keep in mind that when Obama was all but written off after trailing by double digits in late 2007, the media hardly favored him. And when Sarah Palin exploded onto the scene, and before her rollout imploded, similar headlines reemerged casting Obama as lost and listless. By the same token, it's more difficult for progressive media watchers to claim a wholesale rightwing media tilt when Obama clearly received lots of favorable coverage (even if he got it by running a great campaign) and when he won the race.
Either way, although media-bashing is a common sport - which I confess to have indulged in - and even though it's de rigueur online to relish the demise of traditional media business models, in the end, the proclivities and personal beliefs of individual reporters matter less than many political analysts think they do. The political press is just one piece of the Conventional Wisdom Machine, which is comprised of pundits, editorialists, reporters, politicians, elected officials, public figures, TV anchors, radio hosts, comedians and the ever-growing ranks of online commenters, working either in tandem or in opposition. When the CW Machine gets cranking, when cable chatter gets going, when Balz and Broder, Gergen and Todd, Brooks and Dowd, Maddow, Scarborough and Mitchell, Halperin and Tapper, Allen and Smith, Leno, Stewart and Letterman, blogs and talk radio, YouTube and Twitter start buzzing, no amount of Internet prowess and no single email list can offset it.
Obama's Internet savvy cannot overcome the CW Machine. The grassroots infrastructure his campaign built may be able to influence some of the commentary, alter portions of the debate and mitigate some of the effects, but overall, the CW Machine, composed of myriad online and offline components, will grind away and do its business, larger than any one candidate, leader, party or movement.
Ultimately, the grand political battle in the coming years will be the same as it's always been: a contest over the shaping and reshaping of public perceptions -- both with respect to politics and policy. For Democrats, taking comfort in Obama's online successes during the campaign is a losing bet: in recent days, Republicans have demonstrated that despite being in the minority and clearly behind in the Internet game, it's possible for the CW Machine to work in their favor.
If hindering the Democratic agenda by exploiting missteps is a core mission for Republicans, Democrats would do well to note how effectively Republicans have done just that in the nascent days of the Obama presidency and how unpredictably the CW Machine has operated (or how predictably for those who are less sanguine about the fungibility of a web-fueled grassroots campaign).
Perhaps the best strategy in light of all this is simply to govern based on solid Democratic principles and let the results - and history - trump the CW Machine.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Whew! Peter, your article is causing some real thinking on the part of thinking kind of people. You brought out the thinkers as well as a few nonthinking Fox and Limbaugh followers.
I believe, that although corrporate, conservative media owners are biased, their analysts, editors, reporters and all included in transmitting the "news" are intelligent enough to recognize "real issues" as compared to lies & deceit, and they know they must be seen as capable and thinking persons.
That said, we know Republicans are well practiced, as seen during Reagan & Bush years and in Republican's political campaigns for all levels of offices, in using multiple appearances to spew multiple lies. But I still believe there is a minimum number of numbskulls who want to believe the lies. They'll never change their minds due to misguided religious convictions, but I believe there is hope that numbskulls will drop out because they can't handle complicated thoughts.
"
Sorry but until Obama finds the antidote DC poison, no matter the "home meetings, millions on net (a few upset their email not read, used for "look at the numbers we (may) have to scare other side, whom does not fear such! Until Obama gets a real D party, that can deliver a real message to the public, overcome very good sophisticated R machine, my God, they still have Joe the Plumber bounding about as if he is credible, until D party gets leadership, discipline, chutzpah of R party,.. Obama can have all house parties, www names, superficial feel goods, nothing will change. The right has swung the polls on the Economic Bill, look took 1%, made all look like pork, got their tax cuts, seems NO ONE is looking at to close. Will probably will hold something hostage for the upper end tax cuts extended or remain perm. Pretty sure the R;s wanted to loose elections, as D;s are defending, and so is Obama, and to win you never get into a defender position, as they will grind you down. So far seems the R plus a few D's doing just that. The R;s lost, and they are thrilled as been setting that up last few years, even AFG is going to hell how. and wait till Obama pulls troops from Iraq, terror rreturnes/ No R wants mess, better to snipe at it,neither do most D's. Mr O may be on his own!
Most of the responsibility for undermining the transformation of the political process lies with Barack Obama himself, in great part because he himself is caught up in a “conventional wisdom”. Namely, the Clintonian centrism that holds compromise as a goal and virtue in and of itself.
Republicans are politically effective (thought administratively inept) precisely because they hold fast to their positions while Doormat Democrats instinctively lunge for the center, thereby drawing the entire debate consistently rightward. Including tax breaks in the spending bill before Republicans even asked for them is a prime example. Notice how well it worked out for achieving bipartisanship.
The sad truth is that the "liberal media" seems biased to the left (after all they ought to be well-informed) mostly when compared to their corporate mentors/sponsors.
Unfortunately, the greatest flaw of democracy is not "mob rule" but rather mass complacency. A tendency toward both intellectual laziness, and the unwillingness to strive for betterment that accompanies it. As much as such tendencies occur in the hands-on activities of daily life, they are ever more present in the typical individuals approach to influencing ones government. Although I may not agree with some political positions that President Obama has, he does seem to be trying to incite the masses to persue better self-government. I do hope that his sentiments are sincere. That he holds no such coercive notions as John Kerry or Rahm Emmanuel profess in their writings. I suppose that time will tell.
the article say's conventional wisdow plays to the hand of the ReThug's, how about the stupidy of the american plubic that votes for this nonsense.
: with the sorry state of education and the decreased demands it makes on students at all levels, it is kind to call USA "dumbed down". NOT blaming the education systems, it is the parents and all of our fault to not demand better, so if no real history, gov, econ, math, sciences.etc. wellt there is always a varsity sport to meet the future that USA may becme world class competitive.. After all we pay a doped up ball player 27 mil, player of year etc.. and it seems as USA goes like Rome in last days, we even mimic their worship of gladiators and a disconnected Senate. Read where news survey showed "News that is not good upsets the public and they would prefer not hear to much it, puts them in down mood".. which explains a lot.
Nothing last forever. The CW machine will collapse at some point, just like the economy.
It took you a lot of words to get to the last sentence in your discourse, whereas reading Bob Cesca is MUCH easier and WAY more-timely.
Fascism - An economic system where business and industry is privately owned but controlled by government. Guess some were wrong to call Obama a socialist. It seems our Democrat controlled legislative and executive branches are more for fascism.
You are soooo right. I think Ralph Nader warned us last summer of this very tragedy. Maybe one of these days enough people will listen to him.
We listened to Nader in 2000 when he said there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush. Bush led us into two wars he didn't know how to end and destroyed the economy. Al Gore was the first major political figure to talk against our invasion of Iraq. Gore was right on the economy, energy and environment. Bush was wrong on all these issues and smug about it too.
Nader is a gadfly, a good and worthy man. His political judgment is, however, worse than useless.
Fascism is when the government is controlled by business and industry. In practice, there does seem to be little difference between socialism and fascism, but the control may be beside the point. People do form hierarchies. Higher ranked persons have privileges in all systems. Some nations are tyrannies. Nazi Germany was a tyranny. Communist Russia was a tyranny. The US government is capable of taking strong actions of dubious legality so that it might then be said to be tyrannical.
I think most people are content with that -- provided a vague line should not be crossed. We dislike arrogance. Our tyrants should be regular people (born in a log cabin or taking work splitting rails is good).
In a great crisis the Roman republic would appoint a dictator. His rule was absolute and he could not be prosecuted afterward for anything he did. His rule was, however, restricted to half a year. That system broke down as Rome became too big and complex to get anything done in half a year. So, strong rulers like Sulla and Caesar became dictators with indefinite terms of office.
Ideological labels too often have been used to hide the real issues --equity, justice, mercy -- and have been used instead to reinforce convenient simplistic, selfish interests of individuals and collectives promoting "us versus" them " and "we,the good versus them, the evil enemy" perspectives in politics and problem solving in human communities. The explosion of knowledge, easily accessible shared documentation of human history, a fast developing recognition of a growing global community among other factors, have always propelled many o envision the possibility of a more equitable/ just social existence. It is tragic to observe, read of, and listen to the violent death throes of those whose security and identity hinge so strongly on the boxes into which they have been classified or have classified themselves. Living in such temporary false security, It is so easy to surrender individual critical thinking to once tried-and-true but currently ineffective points of view. The marvel of the eternal spirit in humankind is in its waves of deconstruction and reconstruction which dominate the minds of those who are in tune with the pull towards an ever greater unveiling of the positive potentially "good us'"rather than
pushing the reification of the "evil them," who are to be feared but who, in fact are us.
Are you a Republican?
If CW could touch Obama, Hillary Clinton would be President today. Obama is turning CW on its head, and CW doesn't even know it yet.
This will make sense when you see that the Power Elite (what my generation used to call the "Establishment") doesn't change because of an election. It stays the same, just like the permanent government bureaucracy.
Obama grew up in the Chicago part of that group, and they have slightly different personnel and tactics than the Bush faction of Neocons, but they are far more similar than different. He is just NeoCon/Left instead of NeoCon/Right.
Obama is a figurehead, nothing more.
Did you read my post? We voted out the dictators already. The ones who refuse to act in spirit of a majority elected candidates? We've lived under GOP hegemony and corruption for three decades you dink. And where are the huge headlines on the morning papers with GOP IS THE AMERICAN TALIBAN.
If a Democrat had said what Sessions said we would never hear the end of it. GOP dictate, Democrats lead- get it straight. Obama is inclusive not exclusive like Bush was. Who are you any way, a Rush intern.
This, I imagine, is how it must have felt as the "ancien regime" of France -- not much different from today's CW -- sputtered headlong towards the guillotine.
The MSM is literally purging its employees as they prepare to ramp up their attack on President Obama.
http://www.openleft.com/showComment.do?commentId=146670
Here's an excerpt from the thread:
"
I just got laid off at ABC (4.00 / 15)
and my best friend works at CNBC.
They don't want Democrats on air. We've been only booking Republicans because "everybody already knows where the Democrats stand"
After all, what are the Democrats going to do? complain? It's the liberal media, right?
I was in a meeting last week where our producer flat out said we needed to "bring Obama's approval ratings down"
Everyone who got laid off this week was an Obama supporter.
Surprised?
"
Oh, what people!
Peter, believe that you are far more caught up with Obama's aura than I thought. Since I started out believing that his candidacy was focused on winning at all costs and not a test of new ideas about change or hope, I had very little expectations when he won the election. Hillary Clinton was merely expressing the conventional wisdom available by stating that Obama was inexperienced and not as likely to succeed as she would have been. Then he began making his picks for the Cabinet, mostly based on the previous Democratic administration, and this seemed to prove to me that he was indeed very much at sea but knowing where to go for those that could sail the governmental seas. And he chose some good people but he also chose those that had been vetted by "conventional wisdom" such as Geithner and Daschle and counted on the support from people like Rubin and Summers to shape his economy. Last week many of his appointments came unglued. I can't help but think that perhaps Hillary was right: he needs to have more experience HIMSELF, rather than rely on conventional wisdom. I hope he gets his sea legs soon. The Republicans are so far behind the eight ball that I doubt that they will ever be trusted to govern again.
If Gerald Ford could pardon Richard Nixon, Barack Obama can pardon Tom Daschle...After all, we NEED Tom Daschle.
Two wrongs make a right?
This mjc kind of sputter leaves me baffled at intent and message. Is this a still disgruntled Hillary supporter or a Limbaugh and Fox uninformed, but nevertheless staunch follower. I can't figure out this one.
I add to this confusion, in any case, that Bush and his accomplices were unglued before there was a chance to become unglued, yet Bush was clueless that his unglued were incapable of accomplishing what is intended when filling an office in an Administration. There! I said it, but still wondering about what I was actually responding to.
Huffington Post demonstrated to me after this recent election that we must continue to go to war with Republicans -- not letting up for a minute. They are dangerous. Not until they are crushed, and no more with the antiquarian barter economics; and this great evil has perished from our country, can we rest.
I agree.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
