Second, if ever you've been amazed when you heard people on the left say that mainstream liberal media outlets such as the New York Times are not liberal but "conservative," Obama's remarks about the Warren Court reveal where such people are really coming from. The reason they regard the mainstream media as "conservative" is that the mainstream media do not advocate the overthrowing of the U.S. Constitution, of free enterprise, and of property rights--and those are the things that true leftists/progressives, such as Obama, seek.
Nonsense. The media is almost all owned by large profit-driven corporations. That is why they are right of center. You've probably never even listened to left-wing media. Tune in to Democracy Now! if you want to actually hear from the left.
Those of us who are truly left--as I am--seek to enforce the Constitution (e.g., suspension of habeas corpus by Bush admin) not overturn it; to regulate the free market for just the reasons that have put this country into the financial bind it is in; and that "property rights" claim, doesn't even make sense.
What makes you people think that you can see into peoples true motivations? You can't; you get it wrong every time.
Posted by: PensiveGadfly at October 28, 2008 06:06 AM (6VhMY)
Ah, the "owned by corporations" argument. Because obviously
, all corporations are right-leaning. All.
The entire mainstream media (aside from maybe FOX) is left-leaning, even by their own admission. So it's pretty hard to avoid it completely. The people who call mainstream media "conservative" are the same people that are so far to the left that anything short of socialism would be considered "right-leaning" from where they stand.
And the above commenter apparently hasn't really done her research on the market troubles we're having. The dems (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc), were into it deeper than anyone, and they (and others like them) were the ones insisting upon keeping Fannie and Freddie deregulated so that they could have their cake and eat it, too. They were the ones encouraging, even pushing, banks and mortgage companies to make high-risk subprime loans to "low-income" folks; people who obviously couldn't afford them. And that (along with an unhealthy dose of speculation by way of credit default swaps) is what got our economy where we are today, down from its highs the last few years.
And she finishes with a lovely little bit of not-quite-righteous indignation, in hopes of making "you people" feel guilty for "misinterpreting" her intentions (and apparently everyone else's, since all "true" leftists agree with her. Hmm...I rather doubt that, especially based on Obama's remarks about the Warren court not being radical enough becuase it didn't get past the essential constraints of the constitution. Oh, and what he said about how it's a shame that the constitution says things that the government "shouldn't" do, but says nothing about what the government "must" do in terms of benefits for the populace. Ugh. I much prefer my government limited, thank you.
Posted by: Emily at October 28, 2008 06:59 AM (jAos7)
1. Habeas corpus does not apply to lawful combatants, much less unlawful ones.
2. So you're going to "regulate" the Democrats who were behind Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae due to all the damage their shenanigans did to the economy?
Oh wait, am I wrecking some of your talking points? My bad.
Ah yes, forgot one: if media corporations are "center-right" and "profit-driven" why do papers like the New York Times keep posting the most leftist drek... despite losing lots of money in sales?
Posted by: Patrick Chester at October 28, 2008 07:00 AM (MOvul)
Thanks for posting two items in two days from me!
As a former leftist radical who has studied Communist countries for many years, I've never had any problem understanding why the American media are "conservative." Compared to Rodong Sinmun,
the New York Times
is a paragon of conservatism:
You can read daily samples of North Korean journalism in English by the Korean Central News Agency (Google it).
The Korean Central News Agency is most certainly not a profit-driven corporation.
"Left" and "right" are relative terms, and hence there is no consensus on where the "center" is. The mainstream media is clearly to the right of the Korean Central News Agency, but it is also to the left of most readers of this site. So is the MSM "right" or "left"? In the American context where the extreme left is marginal, I would say that the MSM is "left." But in a global context, it may be "right." And in a Communist context, it is
Posted by: Amritas at October 28, 2008 07:49 AM (+nV09)
Thanks for the links! Seems I owe Amritas some thanks as well but I can't find a site where s/he links to me to do so. Perhaps saying "Thanks" here will suffice.
On topic for the thread, let me just add that, as Amritas, notes - Left and Right are relative.
Jonah Goldberg notes in his excellent book, 'Liberal Fascism', that the reason Fascism is generally considered 'Right Wing' is not because it is but because the Left SAYS it is.
And from their perspective, it's true. During the struggle to define Fascism as separate from Socialism and Communism, Socialists and Communists moved even further Left and started pointing fingers back at the Fascists, to their Right!
Thus Fascism, if you ask Socialists, IS a Right Wing ideology. For the rest of the world, however, and as noted by Goldberg, Fascism is as Left wing as they come.
This applies to this thread in that Fascism, in particular and Socialism as generally practiced in this country, are not at total odds with the idea of corporations and profits and such. Odd as that sounds, they not only want, but NEED, the revenue generated by corporate America. The corporations, on the other hand, willingly climb in bed with Government to preserve their own positions and so complete the circle.
For just one example, look into how many corporations use the power of Government to limit their competition. How is this Right Wing or Free Market? The notion that any profit making entity is automatically Free Market or Right Wing is laughable. It may be, but there is no requirement that it be.
I highly recommend Goldberg's book if you haven't read it. He has an entire chapter on the subject.
Thanks again for the link love!
Posted by: Blue Collar Muse at October 29, 2008 05:02 AM (/4KCi)
| Add Comment