Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Why Obama Shouldn't Listen to the Media Noise Machine

By David Sirota, AlterNet. Posted November 21, 2008.


The media are telling Obama to ditch the agenda he won on and appease electorally humiliated Republicans. This is the last thing he should do.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by David Sirota

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

If you're having trouble remembering what the recent election was all about, rest easy: you're probably not going senile -- you're likely experiencing the momentary effects of brainwashing.

For weeks, your television, newspaper and radio have been telling you America is a "center-right nation" that elected Barack Obama to crush his fellow "socialist" hippies, discard the agenda he campaigned on, and meet the policy demands of electorally humiliated Republicans.

This is the usual post-election nonsense from the Braindead Megaphone, as author George Saunders famously calls our political and media noise machine. When George W. Bush wins by 3 million votes, the megaphone blares announcements about a conservative mandate that Democrats must respect. When Obama wins by twice as much, the same megaphone roars about Democrats having no mandate to do anything other than appease conservatives.

It's confusing, isn't it? We hazily recall backing Obama and his progressive platform. Yet, the megaphone's re-educative shock treatment aims to wipe away that memory and conjure eternal conservatism from our spotless minds.

Luckily, we have polling to maintain our sanity.

Public opinion surveys show most Obama voters knew the Illinois senator is a progressive when they cast their ballots -- and those votes for him weren't just anti-Bush protests, they were ideological. According to a post-election poll by my colleagues at the Campaign for America's Future, 70 percent of Americans say they want conservatives to help this progressive president enact his decidedly progressive agenda.

Sensing the enormity of these numbers, Obama seems ready to back a "big bang" of far-reaching initiatives. "We can't afford to wait on moving forward on the key priorities that I identified during the campaign," he said in his first radio address as president-elect.

Based on advertisements, Obama identified no more important priority than guaranteeing health care for all citizens. As the Campaign Media Analysis Group reported, he devoted more than two-thirds of his total television budget to ads that included health care themes. Consequently, a Pew poll found 77 percent of Americans said health care would be a decisive concern in their presidential vote.

The moral case for universal health care is obvious. In the world's richest country -- in a country that builds lavish sports stadiums and showers Wall Street with trillion-dollar bailouts -- 18,000 people die each year because they lack health insurance. We permit this annual massacre while our wasteful system exacerbates our debt and saps our economic competitiveness by forcing us to spend more money per capita on health care than any other nation.

That said, if morality alone prompted solutions, this problem would have been addressed long ago.

Overcoming inertia on such a thorny issue requires budget pressure -- which Obama definitely faces. While some claim the deficit should preclude bold health care legislation, it's the other way around. The Congressional Budget Office says America's fiscal gap is "driven primarily by rising health care costs," meaning a fix is an imperative.

"People ask whether (Obama) has the fiscal breathing room to push health-care reform," economist Jared Bernstein told the Washington Post. "He doesn't have the fiscal breathing room not to do health-care reform."

Additionally, as with everything in Washington, a political motive is needed for action -- and even conservatives acknowledge Democrats have such a motive when it comes to health care.

Fifteen years ago, Republican strategist William Kristol warned that the Clinton administration's universal health care proposals represented "a serious political threat to the Republican Party" because, if passed, they "will revive the reputation" of Democrats as "the generous protector of middle-class interests."

As we all remember, Democrats failed to capitalize on the health care opportunity. But Kristol's prophecy was correct then, as it is now. With huge Democratic majorities in Congress come 2009, only the Braindead Megaphone is in Obama's way.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

 

 


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: right, media, obama, progressives, left, center

David Sirota is a best-selling author whose newest book, "The Uprising," was just released this month. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network -- both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
How about REAL CHANGE
Posted by: 2thepoint on Nov 21, 2008 7:18 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
actually I haven't heard the media telling Obama that at all and I doubt if bipartisanship wasn't in his agenda he would follow that path.

The tone of this article typifies exactly what is wrong with party politics in this nation.

Bush proved very partisan and it created enemies, other Presidents have follow that path and it had the same effect.

Hopefully Obama will select the best person, regardless of what "party" they belong to!

It's about time to do away with the party mentality. Real Change

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yet Another Barack Song
Posted by: onefinedave on Nov 21, 2008 2:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bringing Skinny Back

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama is NOT a Progressive
Posted by: Ray Duray on Nov 21, 2008 9:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
David,

Sorry, I've got to take exception to this statement: "most Obama voters knew the Illinois senator is a progressive".

How could they know this, if it simply isn't true?

Let me give you two examples of why most of us did realize that we were voting for the evil of two lessers and taking our chances.

Markos Moulitsas is absolutely excoriating about the infuriating decision by Obama to reward the traitorous Joe Lieberman with the retention of his Homeland Security Committee Chairmanship: LINK

And in a brilliant analysis, Paul Street tells us exactly why Barack Obama is merely the Empire's New Clothes: LINK

For many of us who consider ourselves hard-core progressives (as in we demand real change, real reform and prosecution of the criminals in the White House) the propaganda that Obama is a progressive is hogwash. How can anyone call Obama a progressive when that term stands for clean government and Obama stands for exonerating all the malfeasant and felonious actors in the Bush Crime Family?

Progressivism doesn't mean forgetting the past. It means reforming the past, and if that means imprisoning those who have perpetrated treasonous acts against the People, then that is what must be done to preserve the Republic.

OK, I know that people will argue that Obama's voting record in the U.S. Senate is one of the most "progressive" out there. But that's not the relevant yardstick. Look at Obama on FISA. He helped eliminate the Fourth Amendment on that vote last summer. Look at Obama on the madness of the War on Ghosts in godforsaken third world hellholes. He wants to waste more of our taxdollars bombing weddings in Waziristan. Look at Obama on the Wall Street fiasco. Not one word about reining in the criminals who defrauded the American public by wrecking the Glass-Steagall Act, allowing Wild West cowboy trading in derivatives or holding anyone accountable for the worst financial crisis in a century. No progressive would give the perpetrators of our financial fiasco a free pass, but Obama does as he cozies up to the very people who helped set this firestorm in the first place.

Enough with Obama The Progressive. Let's call him what he is, Obama: Wall Street's Man in the White House. Or how about this, Obama: The Empire's Empty Suit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama is NOT a Progressive Posted by: georgiaorwell
Noise
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Nov 22, 2008 3:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's one unfortunate difference between Democrats and Republicans that has more to do with the nature of Democrats than the media.

When a Republican gets elected by any margin, he runs with the ball, as far to the right as possible. While there is an element of madness in this, there is also the thought that they need to push everything to the right while they have the chance.

Democrats, on the other hand, seem to have a compulsive need to "work together", which basically means appease the other side and delay implementing any radical election promises until the public forgets that you made them. The Republicans have them so scared and confused that they keep handing over their lunch money after they've been elected.

And whaddaya know? Rumor has it that Obama is filling his cabinet with "moderates". Welcome to "change".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Noise Posted by: VZEQICVA
Hillary Demands Purge of Obama's Foreign Policy Critics
Posted by: Mystery Solver on Nov 22, 2008 9:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first sign of friction in the Obama camp as Mrs Clinton demands - and gets - a purge of her critics before accepting Secretary of State role

Before Hillary Clinton has been formally offered the job as Secretary of State, a purge of Barack Obama's top foreign policy team has begun.

The advisers who helped trash the former First Lady's foreign policy credentials on the campaign trail are being brutally shunted aside, as the price of her accepting the job of being the public face of America to the world. In negotiations with Mr Obama this week before agreeing to take the job, she demanded and received assurances that she alone should appoint staff to the State Department. She also got assurances that she will have direct access to the President and will not have to go through his foreign policy advisers on the National Security Council, which is where many of her critics in the Obama team are expected to end up.

(SMILE)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Abandon Hope and Crush Change
Posted by: The Underboss on Nov 25, 2008 1:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You need to stop making excuses for Obama. He already won the election and he's still pursuing his elitist agenda. The media is doing what they are paid to do - cheerleading and distracting. Instead of focusing on why overtaxed Americans have to pay for these corporate bailouts - they are siding on the side of the crooks stealing from us.

Obama's picked the very people into his cabinet who helped actually helped contribute to this crisis.

Yesterday his pick for Treasury - Geithner was busy executing the government's massive rescue of Citicorp -- the very gigantic failure that Geithner and Summers helped to create back in the Clinton years along with Fed chairman Greenspan and Robert Rubin, Clinton's economics guru.

Now Rubin is himself a Citicorp executive and his bank is now being saved by his old protege (Geithner) with the taxpayers' money.

And these guys are going to be Obama's economic advisors?

Our children's grandchildren's children will be paying for these corporate bailouts which Obama wholeheartedly supports will carry out after Bush.

Abandon Hope and Crush Change...

The Underboss

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You're kidding, Mr. Sirota, right?
Posted by: georgiaorwell on Nov 28, 2008 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Sirota, With all due respect, Obama is not going to bring about free or even reduced national health coverage. He has definitely shown he is in bed with the corporate elite - they backed him so why wouldn't he?

Yes, he looks better than Bush, McCain, and Palin, but that doesn't mean he is not the front man for the corporations just the same. Only this time, he will just look and sound better as we're getting screwed. Read Noam Chomsky's recent article in Democracy Now (reprinted here). That goes along way in explaining the real situation - not fantasyland.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]