Rachel Maddow has a great re-cap of the faulty and deceitful tactics used by the Bush administration that led to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.  Using video evidence Maddow shows the shifting justifications for war — an aggressive war that was clearly criminal.  Yet Obama and the Democrats want us to look forward, not back.  This is all in the past, they say.  What we have here is an affirmation that our political elites are and will never be held responsible for their crimes.  Completely depressing if you ask me.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Technorati Tags: George W. Bush, Iraq war, propaganda, Rachel Maddow

Glenn Greenwald has yet another excellent post that I have to share with anyone who hasn’t read it.  Here he focuses on the views of Cass Sunstein, Obama’s top official in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is tasked with — according to its website — “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs” among other things.

Greenwald begins by noting a paper Sunstein co-wrote in 2008 detailing how government should “employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-’independent’ advocates to ‘cognitively infiltrate‘ online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems ‘false conspiracy theories’ about the Government.”

Sunstein’s strategy of using propaganda reflects long-standing liberal ideas in American political culture.  In the early- to mid-20th century, liberal theorists like Harold Lasswell, Edward Bernays, and Walter Lippmann praised the use of propaganda as a means of controlling public opinion, and Sunstein is simply carrying on this tradition.

But Greenwald is most forceful in pointing to the hypocrisy of liberals who are now defending the Obama Administration for committing the very same acts they were so outraged about when done under Bush — particularly the paying of conservatives Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher to promote Bush Administration programs as implicit “independent” experts.  But now Obama’s Administration has been outed doing the same with Jonathan Gruber’s advocacy of the health care reform proposals.

Paul Krugman, for instance, in 2005 angrily lambasted right-wing pundits and policy analysts who received secret, undisclosed payments, and said they lack “intellectual integrity”; he specifically cited the Armstrong Williams case.  Yet the very same Paul Krugman last week attacked Marcy Wheeler for helping to uncover the Gruber payments by accusing her of being “just like the right-wingers with their endless supply of fake scandals.”  What is one key difference?  Unlike Williams and Gallagher, Jonathan Gruber is a Good, Well-Intentioned Person with Good Views — he favors health care — and so massive, undisclosed payments from the same administration he’s defending are dismissed as a “fake scandal.”

I recommend reading the Greenwald article in its entirety.  Don’t miss it:

Greenwald: Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal

Technorati Tags: Liberals, Obama, propaganda

So it’s been six years since the US Senate voted to authorize the president to invade Iraq.  It’s worth reviewing that time right now.  It was then that Congress – with many Democrats joining the Republican push – relinquished much of their power and played an essential role in establishing an imperial presidency.  As we well know any dissent was ignored or attacked as anti-American and unpatriotic.  Those were fearful times indeed.

Bill Moyers recently covered what was happening at the time.  Watch his video essay on the subject:

Technorati Tags: Bill Moyers, Democrats, Iraq, Iraq war authorization, Journal, war

Obama points out the tactics and goals of the Republicans during this election: anything but issues.

Technorati Tags: Democrats, Election 2008, Lipstick on a Pig, Republicans

Updated below

Rick Davis, a long-time Washington lobbyist and currently John McCain’s campaign manager, recently told The Washington Post, “This election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.” It was a somewhat rare and candid admission by a high level party operative to how the political process actually operates in the United States. While Davis’ comments might seem specific to this election, both major parties have for years preferred to avoid real issues – universal health care, the militaristic state, corporate crime and domination, a growing prison-industrial complex, to name a few – instead choosing to emphasize the personal qualities and style of candidates, especially when it comes to presidential elections. As in advertising, which permeates American’s consumerist culture, the PR surrounding political campaigns is more about feelings and emotions, faith and brand identity than it is about the issues most important to the public.

Mainstream media coverage plays right along with the charade. In fact, it is the perfect vehicle for the branding of hollow political figures. Talk mostly revolves around questions like “Did he or she win over the public with this or that speech?” “How was the presentation?” “Does he come across as an elitist?” And on and on. It’s simple pundit-driven “journalism,” easy to produce, providing the illusion of substance while serving corporate masters.

When public opinion conflicts with elite interests, the public is silenced. Those seeking office know who their paymasters are, and if any issue supported by large portions of the population but opposed by corporate power gets through media filters, it is framed in such a way to be stripped of any substance. For example, take universal health care. For years large majorities of the American public have been in favor of it. So large in fact it can’t be ignored or easily swept under the rug. Ever since Bill Clinton – who was elected in large part for proposing universal coverage – eventually bowed to the insurance industry and HMOs and failed to make the necessary changes, any and all subsequent reform proposals, if even made, only give lip service to the idea of health care for all while doing everything to avoid making the real changes necessary.

Such is politics and democracy in America, a corporate friendly environment indeed.

UPDATE:

Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com has a slightly different take on this subject than I do.  Where I see the depoliticization of politics as a much more bipartisan issue, he points to the Republicans as the main culprits:

Ever since Ronald Reagan’s election, this is what the Republicans do every four years. They render issues irrelevant and convert campaigns into cultural wars and personality referenda. They converted our elections into tawdry reality shows long before networks realized their entertainment value. And every four years, Democrats seems shocked and paralyzed by all of this and desperately delude themselves into believing that mean-spirited “negativity” and nastiness will alienate voters, while the media swoons at the potency of these attacks.

While he certainly is correct in his assessment of the GOP’s approach, it seems to me one of the reasons the Democrats cave in is because they are unwilling to push a truly democratic, issues-based politics to the fore.  Basically limited to rhetorical promises at best, Democrats are easily exposed as the hollow populists most of the country sees them to be.  You see, they play the corporate game as well, which limits the depth and reach their campaigns can actually go.

Greenwald takes the stance of a “realist,” which is understandable.  He knows that “cultural tribalism, resentment and alienation are very powerful influences in how people think.”  This is certainly true, but is the most effective response more tribalism, more attacks, an increased focus on qualities and style?  I doubt Greenwald thinks so.  But it’s not so clear what he proposes the Democrats should do.  He rightly deplores the empty, personal attack strategy of the GOP, and calls for a more combative (defensive?) approach:

Democrats have clearly decided (yet again) to cede that lowly playing field to the GOP and are hoping (yet again) that those personality and cultural issues are not enough to outweigh the country’s dislike of Republican policies…. If John McCain remains — even from the mouths of Democrats — the Honored, Honorable, Principled, Heroic Maverick, the GOP chances will be as high as they can be.

As I see it, what is needed to win is not more attention to personality and qualities, but rather a greater focus on the fundamental changes we know are needed.  But the liberal wing of the corporate power structure will never be able to go that far.

Technorati Tags: debate, Democrats, Election 2008, elections, media, politics