Mass Apathy

An interesting study released by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press on the 13th of September details public opinion on the news-gathering and -presenting media in the United States.

Perhaps not so surprising is one of the first numbers indicated in the release, which is that only 29% of people think the news media generally get the facts correct. The numbers also show that high numbers (over 60%) of both Republicans and Democrats think the media favor one side (presumably, since criticism of the media is on the rise, the other side).

However, even though confidence in the media is so low, surprisingly high percentages of people expressed favorable opinions of particular media outlets - 60% said they had favorable opinions of CNN (44% of Republicans and 75% of Democrats), while 55% had favorable opinions of Fox News (72% of Republicans and 43% of Democrats).

It would seem, then, that a classic move is being made here: People are, in general, saying, "Yes, I know that the news media in general get facts wrong and tend to be biased - but I know this and am not drawn in by it, I am watching the right station for news." This move is precisely one of the ways in which ideology continues to function. That is to say, by stating that we are aware of the inadequacy of the news media, we put some distance between ourselves and it - and it is in this space that ideology functions, as it is filtered through the empty space.

Even though the statement is made that we don't necessarily believe what the media tell us, somewhere around 70% of people still get their news primarily from national media networks. This is, in part - in my non-expert opinion - because the national media networks are where narrativization primarily occurs. It is where a coherent narrative is formed nearly instantaneously as things happen, and it is the narrative that generally gets remembered (unless some future narrativization is allowed to go back and rewrite history).

In sum, there is one important and depressing point to take from this, if nothing else: the fact that most people believe the media generally get the facts wrong and about the same amount of people still choose to get their news from the same outlets (it is about 71% of people in both cases) says that Americans, in general, do not expect truth from the media. We expect fiction and entertainment. We expect excitement, not "truthiness." We do not expect news. This can mean, really, only one thing - that we simply do not care.

-the ambassador

Revolutions of Waste

So, we all want to "go green" with our plastic water bottles and hybrid sport utility vehicles, right? We also expect the men and women in government to represent what we, the people, beleive is right and expect them to fight for what is in our best interest. Through the Bush years, we saw little effort of the governments part to help push our country toward a more friendly lifestyle, with this came increasing agitation among the EPA, environmentalists and democrats on the hill.
Bush's answer to these outcries was a quick budget cut to the EPA, ignoring environmentalists and other politicians and boasting to the world that we are the biggest polluters on earth. Thanks for the plug, buddy.
It is sometimes fun to poke fun at George Walker Bush. However, that time is over, perhaps he screwed us into a couple endless wars and did nothing that the nation called on him to do about impending climate catastrophie, but please let by-gone's be by-gone's, eh?
Now we have Obama. The savior, er charlatan to be more precise perhaps. I voted for the man, but I fear I was part of a large group that really just couldn't stand the sight of McCain or the voice of Palin.
Why do I bash Mr. Obama? Well, frankly, I feel duped, used and betrayed. I voted for Obama (partially for reasons previously mentioned) because I beleived he was environmentally friendly. I was, and many others, were wrong.
The associated Press released a story about SUPERFUND sites, which the EPA defines as "uncontrolled or abandoned place where hazardous waste is located, possibly affecting local ecosystems or people." The story details how the Bush administration actually averaged 17 completed clean up projects at these sites per year more than the Obama administration is planning on finishing in his first two years of office. Both of them gave the same answer:we're broke.
Now, Bush allowed for the tax on polluters to expire and he refused to reinstate it. Obama is working on that, and it will, hopefully (although we know the pace of our government so doubtfully) become law again in 2011. What happens until then?
The sites probably become worse. The chance that the pollutants will find ways into ground water and air will increase the longer we allow them to sit where thay are. Making the projects yet even MORE complicated and MORE expensive whenever that bill does roll around to Obamas desk in two years.
Will the environment forever be stuck on the back burner? Say it ain't so, Mr. President...say it ain't so.

the colonel

Blue Dog Benefits

A domestic topic that's been dominating the news recently is the debate over Obama's health care plan. The New York Times calls this issue a "defining moment" for his presidency. In the article (A Defining Moment Nears for President), former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle is quoted as saying that this "will be a major factor in defining his presidency," adding that "because it is early on, it will define his subsequent years."

Public opinion on health care seems to indicate that the majority of the public is with the president. In a study done by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 75% of people were of the opinion that the system must be changed so that "all are covered for necessary care." Additionally, 41% think "the system needs to be completely rebuilt," 30% say it needs "fundamental changes," and only 24% of people think it needs "only minor changes." Still, the bill faces major Republican opposition in Congress, as well as the opposition of some Democrats, most notably the "Blue Dog Coalition," a moderate/conservative faction in the Democratic party. The same Times article notes that "House Democrats in the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, including seven who hold decisive votes on the Energy & Commerce Committee, say they will not support the House bill without big changes." The article goes on to mention that this opposition is based the opposition of their constituents - which seems unlikely, given nearly 3/4 of the American public think the current system needs either "fundamental changes" or to be "completely rebuilt."

The statement makes more sense, however, if you read constituents as, I suppose, it is meant to be read: "those who enabled my holding of this office." That is, those who provide the financial means for a election campaign. The natural question then becomes: who does wield influence over some of these politicians?

So far for the 2010 election cycle, members of the House Energy & Commerce Committee have received just over a million dollars in campaign funds from various PAC's based in the health care industry (this number and all following ones were provided by the Center for Responsive Politics). Bart Gordon (a Democrat from Indiana and one of the seven members who are both Blue Dogs and on the E & C Committee), for example, received $255,450 from health care professionals and $67,978 from the pharmaceutical industry for the 2008 election cycle. John Barrow, a Georgian Democrat and another one of the seven, received $90,675 from health care professionals for the 2008 election cycle - and so far has raised $10,000 dollars from the same group for 2010. Likewise, Baron P. Hill, another Democratic opponent of the bill, received $81,966 for the 2008 cycle from the pharmaceutical industry, and has another $19,000 in the bank for 2010 (again, solely from the pharmaceutical industry). Given these numbers - and there are similar ones for many of the other Blue Dogs - it seems safe to say that they are indeed protecting the interests of those who got them into office.

They play a dangerous game at a bad time for President Obama, however. With his health care plan playing such a vital role in both his campaign rhetoric and as a counterweight in the media to the economy, he needs a win. Too much compromising on this bill might echo his claims of bipartisanship, but at the cost of undermining much needed - and wanted - change.

-the ambassador

Superstition, Law, and Symbolics

One of the things that must change - I almost feel like that should have a capital C now, Change - in the transition from the Bush to the Obama administration is the stance that has been adopted towards science.

In The Human Condition, Hannah Arendt, a political theorist, writes that "It is by virtue of common sense that the other sense perceptions are known to disclose reality and are not merely felt as irritations of our nerves or resistance sensations of our bodies. A noticeable decrease in common sense in any given community and a noticeable increase in superstition and gullibility are therefore almost infallible signs of alienation from the world."

Just such a decrease in common sense and an increase in gullibility was seen in the Bush administration. Take, for instance, the Bush administration's stance on gay marriage. It was not based on anything but religion, which, in the political realm, is as good as superstition. This superstitious campaign was so successful that much support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in favor of an interpretation calling marriage a union between one man and one woman was gathered. Had the amendment been successful, it would have been nothing more than superstition fully embodied in the legal system. The very idea that this could have been successful is so preposterous that, clearly, something needs to change.

I do have to note something about Arendt's claim, however. What she calls "common sense" is simply a particular symbolic order allowing people to interpret their world - in that sense, "common sense" may not be common at all, especially in today's world. Last semester I wrote a paper (the main thrust of which will probably be posted on the Outlaw Politics page at some point) in which I claimed that a new symbolic order had arisen, consisting of a myriad of tribal, or subcultural, symbolic orders. Within them, people can communicate, and due to some common elements communication across symbolics is also possible. What superstition does, then, is further diffract these symbolic orders, so that it becomes harder to communicate across them.

This has caused a closing off of a truly public realm, one in which - as Arendt would say - the possibility of (political) action is possible. Arendt claims that "power is what keeps the public realm, the potential space of appearance between acting and speaking men, in existence." If this is the case, then contemporary politics doesn't really exist at all - speech and action have become so separate that power has disappeared, and with it the potential for political action. All that is left is speech, utilized in such a way that it is propaganda to keep the populace believing what is necessary until the system itself collapses into the vacuum created by just such a lack of power.

-the ambassador

The Obama Brand

Barack Obama is the president-elect, the 44th president of the United States. I'll give you a few moments for the perfunctory sigh of relief and slight smile that the previous sentence will most likely elicit.

Now, let me be clear before I write the rest of this: I did vote for Obama, and so this post is directed as much at me as anyone else. That being said, here it goes:

Obama is as middle of the road, as centrist as they come. I know that change is a powerful slogan, but it is just that: a slogan. Like Apple advertising, it flicks a switch somewhere in our pleasure centers - not whichever center our political leanings reside in (which, admittedly, is a much more drab town than pleasureville). The difference between centrist Obama and centrist McCain is this: Obama and his team of marketers were much more talented at selling their product. Furthermore, they were tech-savvy from the very beginning, while McCain, admittedly, was not.

Of course, McCain made some valid attempts - drafting Palin, for instance. At first it seemed as though she might save his campaign ("revitalizing the base" and all that), but when your product exposes some serious glitches in its opening run, there are bound to be consequences (think Vista and the subsequent disenchantment with Windows). Palin 2.0 made somewhat of a rebound, but the damage was done.

Obama, on the other hand, was on a plethora of social networks - each with their own specific constituency, and each profile was tailored to appeal to the target market. Biden was a smart choice - a downloadable application to be taken advantage of when necessary, but nothing too garish so as to draw attention from the main product.

Obama certainly mobilized people in a way many of us have never seen. What worries me, though, is that we weren't voting for a president so much as we were investing in a product. Obama made it fun, made it cool to vote. We wanted to vote for Obama because, well hell, everyone else is doing it.

The day after, we were satisfied. But now, a few weeks later - who cares? Worse, when he gets into office, I fear that the first time he makes a mistake people will be screaming: we want an upgrade. This is not what we paid for.

-the ambassador