The New Assassins Don't Use Guns
Today marks the fortieth anniversary of Martin Luther King's death. 1968, like 2008, was an election year in a time of war. Then, as now, a bitter political battle was raging. But the '60s were a time when gunfire changed the political landscape. Today's assassins use different weapons.
We have neither the time nor the ability to address the issue of assassination conspiracies here. The '60s saw the deaths of JFK, King, Bobby Kennedy, and Malcolm X. I can't rule out the possibility of conspiracy in these murders -- after all, Lincoln's death was a conspiracy -- but can't resolve the question either way.
What can be said is that assassination was part of the spirit of those times. Whether by design, or as the result of unseen social forces, murder became a force for political change over and over again during the course of that decade. But something changed -- the zeitgeist? a secret cabal's strategy? -- and the killings stopped. Left-leaning leaders stopped dying, and while there were several unsuccessful attempts against conservatives (Wallace, Ford, Reagan) the chain of assassination seemed to have ended.
But then, they're not needed anymore. A new form of political murder has taken its place -- character assassination. Over the last two decades, the Right has learned how to destroy its enemies without leaving a body. Hit teams roam the country, willing and eager to destroy reputations and careers, with the U.S. press corps as accomplices.
If Martin Luther King were alive today there would be no need for gunfire. He died just as he began speaking out forcefully against the Vietnam War. Were he alive to speak out against the occupation of Iraq -- as he undoubtedly would -- it's easy to imagine how the the character assassins would conduct their hit.
First, an "unnamed source" in the Justice Department would start talking to friendly reporters -- off the record, of course -- about "evidence" that Dr. King was receiving money from suspect Middle Eastern sources. Then the FBI's recordings of Dr. King's private life would be leaked to a friendly media outlet -- probably Matt Drudge. After that, Fox News would scour all the available video of Dr. King's speeches, carefully editing them so that they sound more inflammatory and less peace-loving. They would then broadcast them in an endless loop, as the YouTube hits of these misleading clips reached into the millions.
That's a much more effective way to destroy someone than a gun. Bullets only kill the physical body, but character assassination destroys the person's reputation -- and their political effectiveness. Martyrs are a powerful force, but disgraced leaders can't threaten the status quo.
Take the Clintons. They were the first to be subjected to the full force of the New Assassins. The Right saw a real threat in Bill Clinton. So they went to work -- with rumors about Vince Foster, expensive investigations into his private life, slurs about him and his family, and Ken Starr's investigation. Hardly a day went by without a new attack. President Clinton and his inner circle were subjected to an assault of such intensity that I'm sure it's unimaginable to those who haven't experienced it.
That's why it's especially tragic to watch Hillary Clinton's campaign adopt so many of the tactics of its 1990s opposition. If stories are true, they leaked the picture of Obama in tribal dress to ... the Drudge Report. They've gone to at least one of the ringleaders of that "vast right-wing conspiracy" Hillary spoke about (yes, there was one) in search for support. They've circulated flyers about Obama's reproductive rights record that they knew to be false, and continue to spread false stories that Obama's "not a professor."
Perhaps it's some form of Stockholm Syndrome, or what leftist educator Paulo Friere used to call "internalizing the oppressor consciousness." It may explain their vitriolic reaction to expressions of idealism from Obama and his supporters. I'm sympathetic, on one level: It's hard to hang on to your idealism after you've been a target of the New Assassins. That's a form of sniper fire Hillary Clinton has faced, and it can't be easy.
As for the press, so willing and eager to play their part, they're not evil or even venal. They're just people who get up every morning and do their jobs. In their hearts, they're good people and good citizens. They just don't see the larger picture, or the way their actions are being used to destroy innocent people for political purposes.
Sure, some will say, but it's always been this way. As Jeff Cohen points out, the press was busy attacking Dr. King right up to the moment of his death. And the presidential election of 1800 was filled with vicious rumors in the press. But what's different today is the systematic nature of the assault, the willing complicity of supposedly 'neutral' reporters...and the unprecedented effectiveness of new media as weapons of personal destruction.
Where's Rod Serling when we need him? The political apparatchiks, the press corps, the ordinary Americans looking for a juicy news story to liven up their lives - they're like characters in one of those moralistic Twilight Zone episodes. Remember The Monsters Are Coming to Maple Street? It's like that -- a story of invasion and horror, where it turns out the enemy to be feared is ... us.
We may not be the New Assassins. But as long as we stand by and let them do their work, we're guilty too. Let's stop them once and for all. What better way to remember Martin Luther King?
Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
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
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - Santayana
It is simply not true to say that US political campaigns are getting worse. Making that statement just makes clear the person doesn't know American history.
Read "Anything for a Vote: Dirty Tricks, Cheap Shots, and October Surprises," by Joseph Cummins.
The book chronicles the campaign smears, attacks, and misdirections that have typified U.S. elections since George Washington’s win in 1789. The author's conclusion? "After researching every presidential contest from 1789 to 2004, my answer is that elections are not getting dirtier. They’re just as dirty as they have always been."
He then went on to say, "Whether that’s a heartening trend depends on your point of view. I myself am a great fan of the unruly democratic process, which I think will always be unruly."
For myself, I can't say I like it, but it is what it is and won't change. Candidates need to know that it's coming and be ready to respond. Case in point, Kerry responded ineffectively to the Swift Boat issue, Obama very well to the Rev. Wright issue.
I know that American elections have had a long a dirty history, which is why I mentioned the campaign of 1800. (Although I think there was respite of sorts in the 20th Century before ithings degraded again, thanks to Lee Atwater et al). What HAS changed, and what I discussed here, is the use of new media (cable, blogs, YouTube, etc.) to amplify character assassinations and make them last.
Jefferson's opponents may have circulated pamphlets about his slave mistress and Warren G. Harding's enemies may have planted stories about his African American ancestry (both apparently true, incidentally), but never before have we had an organized machine to destroy reputations. Its moving parts? The GOP, Fox, Drudge etc.
And never before have we seen reputable outlets - New York Times, CNN, etc. - so willing to spread the dirt and keep the stories alive (sometimes in the context of running "a story about a story").
Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, the Freepers and Rush Limbaugh ganged up on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, snipping a few seconds of some of his sermons out of context and playing them over and over and over. Krauthammer, Chris Mathews, Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, Lou Dobbs Newt Gingrich had themselves a right and royal lynching of a black man in 2008.
Wright had gone to the Clinton White House to aid them in their hour of need, but Hillary announced that Wright would not be HER pastor, even while her own former pastor offered his support of Wright, she began a campaign to tell superdelegates Obama has a Wright problem and can't win.
Let no one be fooled...this was the modern day lynch mob, and each of them - Dobbs, Krauthammer, Limbaugh, Mathews, Scarborough and Hannity, Gingrich and Buchanan, and Clinton - needs to own their racist bigotry for their participation.
Pat Buchanan needs to be retired. He dared comment that blacks are ungrateful:
http://thedistrictweekly.com/daily/staff-infection/briefing/pat-buchanan-fed-up-with-ungrateful-negroes/
In context, Wright spoke against the inevitible war. He quoted those who believe, as Bin Laden asserts, 9/11 was a direct result of US policies. He said 'God Damn America for killing innocents', which we have done, thousands of innocent Iraqis dead.
Don't let the lynch mob get by with it.
Don't act as if the Left doesn't assassinate on character. Senator Casey did it to Santorum, practically everyone does it to Bush, and Obama and Hillary do it to each other.
If anyone is responsible for the character assassination of George W. Bush, it's Bush himself.
nellie dear, if you think what's happening to GW is character assassination, you're unwell in the extreme. He has no character to assassinate.
Denouncing someone who is a war criminal based on facts is not character assassination. It's speaking the truth.
Oxford American: Character assassination: "the malicious and unjustified harming of a person's good reputation."
Attacks on the character of Mr. Bush are not unjustified, and he has no 'good reputation'...he's destroyed any hope of that himself.
Take the Clintons. They were the first to be subjected to the full force of the New Assasins? RJ, you have got to be kidding or need a test for mind altering drugs. Nobody but nobody could master character assasination like the Clintons. Look at all the "bimbo erruptions" that were immediately decisively dealt with along with all the other IRS attacks, FBI and CIA scrutiny aimed with laser accuracy at those not following the Clinton game plan. Now they are on the receiving end. What goes around, comes around and the Clintons have a lot coming back at them for all the damage they caused. Martin Luther King would be depressed by the way the loons have highjacked both parties. To suggest that the Repubs are evil killers and racists is hypocritical and dishonest. They are ALL worthless Dems included. Have you thanked the repubs for passing the Civil Rights Act while the southern dems voted against it? People are so blinded by hate and the blame game that they can't see that congress needs to be replaced in its entirety.
R.J., You said, "Take the Clintons. They were the first to be subjected to the full force of the New Assassins. The Right saw a real threat in Bill Clinton. So they went to work -- with rumors about Vince Foster, expensive investigations into his private life, slurs about him and his family, and Ken Starr's investigation. Hardly a day went by without a new attack. President Clinton and his inner circle were subjected to an assault of such intensity that I'm sure it's unimaginable to those who haven't experienced it.
I fully agree with your description of what happened to the Clintons and realize it is still going on today. The fact that Obama supporters believed everything negative about the Clintons and joined in the assault against them triggered the "self defense" mechanism in all of the Clinton supporters. To read the comments on this Blog and to hear that Obama supporters are calling my choice for President a "Bitch", a "Whore", a "born liar", and stating that all Clinton supporters are "Trailer Trash" while he "stays above the fray" is not my idea of uniting the Democratic Party, and especially not the country.
You also said, "That's why it's especially tragic to watch Hillary Clinton's campaign adopt so many of the tactics of its 1990s opposition. If stories are true, they leaked the picture of Obama in tribal dress to ... the Drudge Report."
Spreading unproven stories is also a form of "Hillary Bashing".
Putting aside your characterization of Obama supporters, I'd like to dig into the attacks andd false stories that you say the Obama campaign is floating out there about Hillary.
Just to be clear: we can all point to Obama or Hillary supporters, here and on other blogs, etc, that are overheated and say stupid things. What I am interested in is where the Obama campaign itself has initiated attacks on Clinton from your perspective. I'll start with one that the Clinton campaign launched against Obama as an example. In one of their reporter calls, they circulated the notion that Obama was exxagerating by saying he was a Professor, that he held a lesser title. This was quickly and elegantly squashed by the college and then died out. If it had been true, I would categorize it as "petty but not off limits." This is a pretty regular tactic for the Clinton Camp, which I thing is bad. Now, tell me how you see this type of thing from the Obama campaign. Because I am not seeing it. Thanks
ATLiberal:
You said, "What I am interested in is where the Obama campaign itself has initiated attacks on Clinton from your perspective."
Turning everything Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton said into racist statements in the early stages of the race and then using his race as an advantage when it suited him. These are the same tactics that David Axelrod has used to get other unknown Black candidates elected and he is an expert at it. I realize this is just politics and am used to it. I just can't understand why Obama's supporters can't see it too.
You can bet your a$$ the Republicans will not give him a pass like his supporters have by protecting him from Hillary Clinton's love taps.
The Republicans play for keeps and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is playing into their hands by chosing a candidate that can't win the general election.
Not so fast on the professor thing. I've forgotten the details of what his position was, but the University said that those who held his position were 'considered to be professors' which is not the same as actually being one.
It's semantics, but technically they were right - although ill-advised to 'go there.'
I'm from an academic family, my father was a professor, a PhD as is my brother and my mother. Most actual full professors would be insulted by his referring to himself as one if he actually wasn't. Most people don't know the distinction, but to those who are in the profession, it's of great importance! In that world, 'considered to be' doesn't cut it!!
The internet is slowly stealing the relevance from the MSM by providing news, research tools, diverse opinion and forum.
Some may have noticed that when Headline News, Bill'o or Olbermann comes on, you already have insight and opinion on the stories because you've seen them on the internet already, and probably read the diverse commentary.
If one thinks about it, this is the true nature of news, kinda like gossip in print, with all the spin included. The difference is that here you get so much more than one-way spin.
In many cases the MSM leads with internet stories from the previous day!
I say good riddance to those outlets that have dug their own graves and followed each other into that precipice!
Yep. And they get half their news from google anyway -- hah
To be snarky, HP is an internet site & has become a vital element of the MSM. Since I don't often regularly use other sites which don't express progressive views-I can't identify other web sites which have become elements of MSM. Somebody may know which web sites now are part of the MSM. I have a hunch that other sites have become important elements of the MSM. Maybe some user of HP will verify my hunch or shoot it down.
larry lynch
I think Obama has a vivid imagination. He will have to explain the differences between what he published as the story of who he is, and what he has done as the fact of who he is should it come to a contest between himself and McCain.
I, for one, would like to hear directly from Obama's mouth, without 5 days to craft out a speech on it, exactly what he did in the short time he was in the US Senate that gave him the confidence to tell all of us he was now ready and able to become the leader of this country. To date, not one person who was there has been forthcoming with this information.
You can start at the Library of Congress, by comparing the legislative body of work of the Senators Obama and H Clinton. Here is a link.
http://thomas.loc.gov
From the tone of your email, you may not like the results of your research. But give it a try.
ATLiberal:
I followed your link and noted a distinct difference in the legislation proposed by Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton.
I was struck by the fact that a large number of resolutions introduced by Senator Obama contained the words "African-American" while the ones introduced by Senator Clinton were designed to benefit everyone.
Does this mean that Senator Obama wants to be the "First Black President" or the "First President for Blacks only"?
agree with the sentiment, but since real people are really being murdered in the Iraq War Crime, I would prefer to deescalate the rhetoric.
We always become our enemy. The abyss sees us.
There-was-a-story-on-a-mom-who-let-her-nine-year-old-ride-the-subway-6-stops-to-his-house-in-New-York. She-was-told-she-was-a-bad-mom. She-responeded-that-the-world-isn't-as-scary-a-place-as-the-media-make-it-out-to-be,and-she-is-correct..
People are basically decent. A researcher purposely leaves a wallet in New York taxi cabs and it is returned time after time by citizens who insist that he was lucky that it wasn't found by your average New Yorker, who would keep it. This is the fault of the media.
I'm not saying they should report on all the nice things in the world instead of focusing on the bad.
What I AM saying, is that perhaps we should only alot each network one news show with one hour to tell all the news they think is important. What would they pick? Jessica Simpson? Snoop Dog's ignorant take on the election he isn't even paying attention to? The latest celebrity preganancy?
What we need is responsible, insightful well researched reports on truly relevant topics.
Press:PLEASE-STOP-HURTING-AMERICA
It's easy to be a cynic, you don't have to think about the real story or understand it's relevance to the situation. You don't have to develop resources. And it plays to a base aspect of the human psyche that loves to see anyone that has accomplished anything stumble.
My advice is to learn the definition and characteristics of a cynic and then when they speak in the media, filter out what they say -- after a while, you'll know who to trust and listen to. Fortunately, there are some trusted journalists left...
I had a professor call me out for making a cynically statement in class and I'll never forget what he said. The most salient part was, "cynicism is the paradise of a lazy mind."
"cynicism is the paradise of a lazy mind." I, horrible cynic though I be, (after some "thoughting") think your prof may have been on to something. What school? What prof? Though I would not disparage cynics when you look at what an american god has given them to worry with.
The press isn't neutral. It isn't Right nor Left, fair nor balanced. It exists as a medium for profit. What bleeds, leads. They take joy at making mountains out of molehills. They aren't happy unless they are stirring something up. There are some partisan hacks out there, but they are generally blatent enough that no one can believe otherwise, but mostly they do their darned best to sell air time and print.
It's a disgrace.
They no longer investigate anything. Most do less googling than your average huffington commentor, so they not only haven't seen the Wright videos in full context, they don't even know they exist. They move on to the next story.
Ageed, kettletop.
Had 24-hr news existed any other time in our history, we would be a completely different country (possibly of the type Huxley and Orwell feared). -- --- ---
American mythology (the lore, beliefs and good things that are central to all -- those black&white "truths") is being played against the innuendo & misrepresentation of SINGLE MOMENTS IN TIME presented as a TOTALITY. -- --- --- Context and nuance be damned -- -- --- -- Network news used to say it only had a 1/2 hour to tell national news, therefore, it could only broadcast the front page of a newspaper. Today's corporate masters DO NOT ALLOW any in-depth reporting (just endless re-hash of a few stories, speculation by pundits, and 30% returns on investments). -- -- --- I blame the deregulation of the 80s, the commodification of public airwaves, and the end of the Fairness Doctrine (which birthed the daily propaganda of talk radio vitriol). --- ---- The Internet, with all its chaos, is actually the SALVATION (in that truth can bypass the MSM). -- --- I hope Americans can broaden their sensibilities as to what is real (and what is "forced framing").
the MSM is biased toward the issues that help the war profiteering corporations that own them. Kucinich got ratings, but was not allowed to debate because he would stop the war machine.
When I was a T.V. NEWS photographer, (16 mm film), we couldn't show BLOOD in black and white video. Now you better not watch the NEWS during a meal if you have a weak stomach.
Even some commercials.
Excellent post.
Thanks, RJ.
DITTO
RJ:
Just you wait the next few weeks will be blistering for Sen. Obama. There will be little bomb shells hitting the media and by the time Sen. Obama's team gets things addressed voting in NC and IN will be over.
In the next few days there will be lots of little things popping up that Sen. Obama's oposition will set in motion through their contacts media and through their surrogates.
RJ, it's going to get worse than ugly before the PA election.
Remember it ain't over until the fat lady sings.
The Clintons have been spending the past two weeks reminding folks that they are not quitters and whispering all sorts of inuendo to super delegates and who ever in the media will listen "Obama can't win ..."
Neutral press no longer exists - that period of reporting went out when Walter Cronkite and his kind left journalism due to illness, old age or death. Character assasination has been rampant since the invention of the Daily "Entertainment/Opinionated" News Organizations, and had it not been for the internet, society today would have no viable option to find truth in reporting. We may as well be living in China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, etc. Thank God for the computer; at least in this country we have the option of research due to the net, however that certainly does not mean that every citizen will bother to find out the truth. Afterall it truly is "easier" to just accept the crap that the MSM dole out daily as fact!
- "That's why it's especially tragic to watch Hillary Clinton's campaign adopt so many of the tactics of its 1990s opposition. If stories are true, they leaked the picture of Obama in tribal dress to ... the Drudge Report. They've gone to at least one of the ringleaders of that "vast right-wing conspiracy" Hillary spoke about (yes, there was one) in search for support. They've circulated flyers about Obama's reproductive rights record that they knew to be false, and continue to spread false stories that Obama's "not a professor." -
Maybe the Bill and Hillary Clinton's characters are dead on arrival?
Some are just discovering the body, after decades of thinking it alive and well.
You think the 1990's opposition group just dropped off the face of the earth? Just who do you think is running the operation to make it appear as though the Clinton's are at the wheel of Obama smearing?!! Guess why the Clinton's are so frustrated by the track this campaign race has been on since SC! That 1990's group is having a great time telling you to see how Bill said Obama wasn't a patriot because he didn't include him in the scenario of Hillary as the nominee against McCain....best yet, how many buy those ridiculous ideas.
It's a technicality, but a full-fledged professor who worked the years and dedicated himself to earning that prestigeous title might be offended by Obama using it without having earned it.
The stories I've heard are that the Republicans have started the biggest leaks, and not all of the stories are false. If the Clinton's need to point out where Obama has taken credit that wasn't his to take, that's politics, not a smear campaign.
Bill himself pulled the race card out in SC (and they played this clip again a night or two ago on CNN, so I think I can convey what he actually said prettty accurately). Answering a question about Obama's victory in SC, he said "Jesse Jackson won in SC, too. Twice."
You know what? A lot of presidential candidates have won in the SC primary. Why do you think Bill mentioned Jesse Jackson? That was in '84 and '88. We are twent years later in 2008. If the allusion to Obama being black isn't obvious, you have to be in willful denial.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
