Treason On Reason: Why Do Famous Liberal Commentators Help McCain, Conservatives?

Liberal commentators employed by the national corporate media are again falling into the right-wing narrative frames and discourses that have damaged this country’s democratic institutions and brought us perpetual war and economic disaster.

In essence, they are engaging and thus qualifying the bizarre drivel created by supposed unbiased political reporters, who focus on trivial nuances and “mistakes” of campaigns and are apparently bored by the Iraq occupation, the distressed economy and the loss of basic civil liberties. By engaging this drivel, these liberal commentators support established conservative frames about current political conditions no matter which Democratic candidate they support for president.

If John McCain, the Imperial George Bush redux, gets elected in November, then the mainstream media, already under fire by liberals in this country, will slide even deeper into financial chaos. Newspaper circulation continues to decline. Mainstream media revenues continue to sink. One must ask the question repeatedly: Why alienate people who actually read?

Some liberal commentators, such as Frank Rich of the The New York Times can see the larger picture about this election, but many liberal columnists, such as Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert and Maureen Dowd of The Times, and E.J. Dionne Jr. and Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post, are hurting Democrats when they turn their columns into attacks against presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton or when they parse and wallow in the ridiculous right-wing frames about the candidates. Have they been intellectually and financially compromised by their corporations? Certainly, this is true: People who want change in this country—and the numbers are growing astronomically—need to look elsewhere for a different dialogue about the nation’s problems.

The country has entered its sixth year of a costly and gruesome military occupation, people are losing their jobs and houses as the economy tanks and the current American presidential administration sanctions torture, the suspension of habeas corpus and military propaganda. Americans are fed up, angry and want change. The polls show it. The overwhelming adoring response to the Democratic Party presidential contenders show it. The huge increase in new Democratic Party voter registrations shows it. The anecdotal street evidence shows it. This is the story in the 2008 election so why won’t the liberal pundits engage it on a regular basis when writing about it? Why are they lost in right-wing lala land, in the Limbaughesque distortions, in the nauseating trivia?

One argument is simply they are absorbed by the larger corporate views of their employers. Their employers pay them well to engage the inane political reporting that fills their newspapers and newscasts. These columnists must write about “bitter” and bowling and Bill Clinton’s speeches and Hillary’s supposed campaign staff gaffes in order to support the corporate system that pays them. Whether it is conscious or not, whether they will be honest about it or not, these columnists must honor the exaggerated, hyperventilating media frames—Obama cannot bowl so he will now certainly lose! Hillary shed a tear so she will now certainly lose!—the corporations use each day to turn profits. They want to involve you in their immediate soap opera-like fictional dramas and make-believe nonsense to do one thing and one thing only: Make money.

Here is a piece of the latest snark from legendary Clinton hater Dowd:

Maybe I’ve been reading too many stories about the fad of teenage vampire chick lit, worlds filled with parasitic aliens and demi-human creatures, but there’s something eerie going on in this race.

Hillary grows more and more glowy as Obama grows more and more wan.

Is she draining him of his precious bodily fluids? Leeching his magic? Siphoning off his aura?

Dowd is obviously obsessed and distressed with Clinton, and it is a real shame her editors have allowed her to publish column after column vilifying the candidate. Her last column, though, was a classic Dowd “clever writing” rant on both Clinton and Obama. So Clinton is the emasculator and Obama is the “wan” effeminate. This is from the playbook of the Republican Party. One wonders if Dowd should make her tax returns public so we can see if she is on the GOP dole. (Then again, maybe Dowd does not even qualify as a liberal columnist anymore and should not even be a part of this argument.)

A Krugman column last week argued John McCain’s recent campaign point that Barack Obama is out of touch with working class people:

From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” (waiting for to do what, exactly?) would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not.

Krugman apparently supports Clinton; he certainly likes her health care policy proposals better than those given by Obama’s camp. But to argue a nonsensical GOP-talking point or to actually create it—now, folks, does Obama really really care about people with “lagging wages”?—only supports the elitist frame Republicans have used on every Democratic presidential contender since at least George McGovern. Krugman, an academic, often qualifies his arguments, and I have a great deal of respect for his work, but recently he has gone on the attack against Obama using right-wing frames. What about McCain’s lack of any coherent proposals about the economy? That is the real story this election year.

Here is Herbert about the long-lost Obama phenomenon and Clinton's "death-ray machine" from a recent column:

You can almost feel the air seeping out of the Obama phenomenon. The candidate and his aides are brainstorming ways to counter the Clinton death-ray machine and regain the momentum. They need to generate some new excitement and enthusiasm, and they need to do it soon.

It is difficult to understand this argument. All the available evidence, from polls to recorded votes to the adoring crowds, show Obama still incites a political enthusiasm we have not seen in a generation. (Clinton attracts large crowds, has good polling numbers as well, and she is not far behind in votes and delegates to Obama.) Herbert is at least implicitly admitting the right-wing frames against Obama have worked. I see no evidence that is the case. This might just be a case in which a liberal pundit has been hoodwinked by the terrible trivialization of political coverage conducted by, among others, his own newspaper’s reporters. Herbert, who has spoken out for the downtrodden in our culture for years, suddenly has lost his edge when it comes to matters that are important when he writes about the presidential election. The "death-ray machine" term supports prevailing right-wing stereotypes about Clinton as well. Why not consistently speak out against McCain’s lack of any economic or health care proposals. Why not write about that week after week? That is the real story.

Here is Robinson’s rant against Clinton last week:

Actually, the better film analogy may be "The Terminator." (Anything but "Rocky" -- or, in the popular Internet video, "Baracky.") Yes, I know it's inappropriate to compare a talented and accomplished woman such as Hillary Clinton with a homicidal cyborg from the future. But it's hard to come up with a better image for the woman's sheer relentlessness. If she ever says "I'll be back" while I'm within earshot, I'm getting out of Dodge.

Clinton has every reason to continue her campaign at this point so why feed into the right-wing stereotypes of her? What purpose is there to do so, except to weaken Democrats in general? What if she gets the nomination? Robinson qualifies his comparison, for sure, but he turns Clinton into just exactly what the right-wing wants you to think about her. The right-wingers love it. Robinson even gives Republicans their specific analogy. They can even say it came from a left-wing media pundit. Why not write about McCain's lack of any real proposal to solve the health care crisis in this country? I guess "homicidal cyborg" Clinton will trump that any day. But still people suffer in this country because of lousy health care.

Here is Dionne recently parsing Obama:

But when Obama falls into the long pauses he is sometimes given to in debate, the wordy answers he periodically offers to questions, or the visible impatience he exhibits toward the less-elevating aspects of politics, he seems far more the law review editor, the professor, the classic good-government guy whose reach to society's hard-pressed is limited.

Once again, Obama is the elitist, the aloof law review editor, who simply cannot relate to real people. Obama, well, he falls into long pauses and, well, he is "wordy." This is from the Karl Rove playbook, the first lesson in GOP 101 ("this country 'don't need no' wordy people as president"), and still Dionne, a seasoned journalist, falls for it. Does Dionne really not see how he is promoting a right-wing view of Obama and Democratic presidential contenders in general?

These are just a few examples, but they are indicative of a consistent, growing pattern. All these liberal writers are publishing columns rooted in right-wing attacks on Democrats. All the above quotes could easily end up on GOP attack material now and after the conventions. This is tragic for our country, which faces serious problems on a historic level. The country's large media outlets should employ liberal columnists who will frame the current political debate in real terms outside the GOP talking points. Perhaps that is impossible because of the complicity between our current corrupt government and the mainstream media.

This will be considered one of the most historic American presidential elections for many obvious reasons. It is a national tragedy and disgrace these famous liberal columnists cannot or will not consistently write about that fact.