Stickybuffalo.com

If I see one more of these various stories about the incoming Republican congress’ pledge to “repeal health care reform,” I think my eyes may roll out of my head entirely. I mean, what’s the point, right? Reactionaries’ assaults via the legal system (and where are the schoolmarmish types who are always clucking with disapproval over liberals‘ alleged use of the courts as an end-run around legislative action, by the way?) may lead to something of significance, but House Republicans’ huffing and puffing and threatening to blow our health care reform down?

Yeah: absolutely meaningless. They can pass whatever they want; guess what? Killed in the Senate! (Welcome to our world, fuckers.) And if it weren’t, guess what? Vetoed by the President. (He’s still The Decider, remember?) So who the fuck cares that Freddie the Freshman Congressman from Teaparty, Indiana is wetting his pants with excitement about the opportunity to repeal that evil ol’ socialist Obamacare?

Honestly, our media is normally so literally reactionary… and when they make an exception and attempt to anticipate something for once? It’s completely irrelevant. Pulitzer’s ghost, what a lot of ninnies.

This sound and fury hasn’t been entirely without benefit, at least for me, though. Because in reflecting further on the prospects for what happens to health care reform, in the months and years ahead, I’ve realized that for once, Democrats may actually have achieved a pretty confounding strategic victory over their opponents. (more…)

I do not get mainstream anglophone news media’s sudden decision to report that “liberals/Democrats are unhappy with President Barack Obama” since the announcement of the recent tax-cuts-for-unemployment extension deal. Everywhere this latter development is mentioned, there is at least one story on the former; in some cases libdem discontent actually seems to be treated with more importance.

Can someone explain this to me, please? Liberal Democrats are nearly always unhappy. Where is the news? If it’s because discontent with Obama is causing a “rupture” between the president and “his base of support,” we’ve been dissatisfied with him for quite a while, also. Again, where is the news?

And why is it considered relevant to anything, since as political journalists and talking heads constantly remind us, liberals/Democrats are all a bunch of congenitally-ineffective pussies? If these stories are meant to imply that our ire may actually have consequences… how? If not, what’s the point? One big collective Nelson Mundt “HA ha?”

Frankly, I’m not even so much out to criticize here, for once, as I am terribly curious about the mechanics of how this works. If we assume that 75% of these stories are being written simply because it’s now an established story, and everyone feels obligated to cover it, how did it get started? How did this suddenly get enough attention in the first place to reach that magic tipping point?

Is it that, now, the important people are complaining volubly for the first time? Members of congress, Hill staffers, people with big checkbooks, people who actually count within Beltway journalists’ tiny horizon of awareness, is that it?

I’m just curious about how something goes from being beneath the notice of the national conversation one day to front-page news the next. Maybe some enterprising Wikileaker could help him or herself to a list of these Important People and share it with us for Christmas, complete with e-mail addresses, phone numbers, Twitter accounts, etc.? If you really want to stir up some shit, after all…

Quiz: what’s the American media’s current master narrative on Democrats vs Republicans? Is it:

A. The Democratic party is a bunch of wishy-washy, malcontented weenies who can’t even manage internal order, let alone inspire independent/swing/other voters to much of anything whatsoever. As compared with the disciplined, focused GOP with its completely united front, and mastery of messaging, understanding the “average” voter, harnessing grass-root energy to steer the conversation, etc.

B. American politics is increasingly polarized, with the compromises necessary to achieve any kind of productive reforms made impossible by the erosion of the precious “center.” Extremists on the left and right are crowding out other voices and increasingly dominate both political parties. Equally.

If you answered “A and B” both, congratulations! Like me, you’ve noticed that the pundits, opinionmakers and talking heads of American (and frequently British, as well) media currently have two entirely incompatible lines on liberals/Democrats.

Whenever it’s time to do the traditional, “objective” horse-race coverage of politics, Democrats are hopeless pussies who can’t ever do anything right.

Yet whenever someone gets so distressed by the appalling state of things that they have to suspend the nihilistic horse-race narrative for a moment, to indulge in some brow-furrowing and hand-wringing, the determination to always be “fair and balanced” requires the amazing transformation of Democrats into a monolithic group of extremists, every bit as narrow in perspective and effective in pulling their party to one side of the political spectrum as the Republicans. Because anything else might seem “partisan,” and it’s much more important to appear “objective” than it is to accurately describe reality.

Admittedly, I don’t remember that from my own journalism studies, but then I never even completed a minor so presumably this is explained thoroughly in the upper-level courses.