The Media, Palin, and the "Great Debate"

The Media, Palin, and the "Great Debate"

by Norman Markowitz

Palin smiled and talked in cliches and smiled and talked in cliches and was unresponsive to the interviewers' questions and pretty much told the interviewer that she would be unresponsive to interviewer's questions. Biden and the interviewer were both very very soft on her.

The commentary, both in on TV and in the press, would probably be considered surreal in any "modern democracy." Palin came through because she didn't talk like a complete idiot,a religious fanatic, speak in tongues, or start tap dancing. As a historian who always looks to U.S. history for insights, I thought of a moment in the campaign of 1884, when an independent reformer, supporting Grover Cleveland over the corruption ridden Republican James G. Blaine but disgusted completely with the entire campaign said, "Cleveland does not steal. Good God, has it come to this?" He meant that the fact that Cleveland was not a known grafter and thief qualified him for the presidency. That Palin did not have a Dan Quayle moment (saying that she wished she had studied Latin to help her in her trip to Latin America or pointing or misspelling oil the way Quayle famously incorrectly spelled potato), qualifies her to be a serious candidate for Vice President. McCain, as the media asserted, could now not "be defensive" about his choice for Vice President. Once more the GOP "base" might be energized Good God has it come to this.

In the Dodgers-Cubs baseball game, those watching could see the Cubs in the second inning make a number of crucial errors that led the Dodgers to score five runs and take over the game. Those watching the debate had no score card, but if they did they would see and count Palin's ignorant (meaning she was wrong on the facts) or stupid(meaning she wasn't thinking straight statements). When She accused Senator Obama of advocating programs that would raise taxes on low income families (families with incomes below $50,000) she was either lying consciously or simply booting the ball. Senator Biden corrected her by making the point that the Obama proposals would raise taxes on the wealthy significantly after three decades of detaxation and objectively reduce taxes for the overwhelming majority of working families.

I also thought of the late Alfred M Lee's classic 1930s study, the Fine Art of Propaganda, which looked at the pro fascist radio priest, Charles Coughlin and used him to analyze more broadly mass media political propaganda. Lee's purpose was to help citizens understand and not fall for reactionary and fascist propagandists, who identified themselves with the nation, ordinary people, sometimes raised real questions about economic and social injustice, but answered them with calls for action against minorities, foreign powers, Communists, socialists and others whom they scapegoated for the problems.

Political demagogues, Lee showed, used techniques which advertising media had made people comfortable with, techniques to sell them fascism by both appealing to existing prejudices and pretending to give them facts to support and intensify those prejudices. As I looked at Palin(and I am not calling her a fascist) that is exactly what she did, and that really isn't funny. First she used the "plain folks" strategy, talking about a candidate representing "Joe Sixpacks and Hockey Moms" portraying herself as the embodiment of the plain folks of Alaska, their "common sense" wisdom and understanding which towers above the economists, sociologists, trade unionists, people in the arts, sciences and professions connected to social policy and most of all the "other plain folks,"that is working people who want to see the rich taxed, an end to foreclosures, policies to protect jobs and create greater economic equality in the country.

http://paeditorsblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/media-palin-and-great-debate-by-norman.html