by Klaus Rohrich
November 11 2004
The recent presidential elections in the U.S. demonstrated that the so-called mainstream media is beginning to lose its grip on the political landscape. George Bush won by what could easily be described as a rout of the Democrats, despite the many efforts of the liberals’ oligopoly to shape the election’s outcome. It’s about time.
For four decades news media like CBS and its print counterpart, The New York Times, Washington Post, et al have shaped the political dialogue in the United States and have had way too much influence on the outcome of elections. Whenever a conservative president was elected, the media rationalized the election with references to "stolen elections" and an electorate that was being led down the garden path.
Most recently the mainstream media has taken to calling the electorate "stupid" and "morons", in an effort to rationalize the Democrats’ loss. Dowdy Maureen Dowd wrote in The New York Times that Bush campaigned along "…fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule." Paul Krugman, also of The Times, wrote that the election was won by "a coalition that deeply dislikes america."
Could have fooled me. But then, it does make sense that sentiments such as these would bubble to the surface the morning after. Take Jane Smiley who on slate.msn.com wrote about "ignorance and blood lust" governing the outcome of the elections. That’s one way of looking at it. another way might be that the oh-so-tolerant-and-sophisticated liberal press is no longer capable of fooling americans.
Dan Rather tried his damndest to derail George Bush with his story of Bush being a deserter some 30 years ago backed up by forged documents that everyone at CBS News must have known were forged. Then there was the story first broken by The New York Times of the 380 tons of missing explosives from one of Saddam Hussein’s ammo dumps, purportedly while the explosives were in the custody of american soldiers. The point of the story, apparently, was to prove the Bush administration incompetent in protecting america from terrorism. Maybe a decade ago stories such as these coming from news organizations like CBS News and The Times might have had in impact on the outcome of the elections. Today people see it for what it really is: a cheap method of attempting to influence the vote.
It’s interesting to note that Liberals find it so important to blame losses at the ballot box on everyone but themselves. It appears that they cannot wrap their heads around the concept of having their ideas rejected, when after all, they are so superior, progressive and intellectually advanced, steeped in tolerance and understanding and committed to resolving conflict with words, not guns. That’s the unique appeal of liberalism. It has all the appearences of being modern and hip and it connotes sexiness, while conservatism is endlessly painted with the brush of fundamentalist Christian, shade-tree mechanic, moonshine brewing, subhuman rednecks.
With the advent of the Internet and talk radio, liberals more and more are finding themselves exposed for what they really are: intolerant, closed-minded poseurs who are unable to countenance not having their way. Finally individuals who have quietly thought of themselves as members of a philosophical minority are discovering that in fact they comprise the majority, as did the nearly 60 million who voted for George W. Bush, who are now being called ignorant by liberals. It’s important to note that liberals have the same vehicles available to them, as do conservatives. The difference is that these vehicles are gaining no traction. air america, the liberals’ answer to Rush Limbaugh was only available in some of the nation’s smallest markets because there simply wasn’t an audience willing to tune in. In fact, many of air america’s employees had their very first paycheque returned NSF. Yet immediately after the election, Democratic operatives like Harold Ickes are lamenting that the Democrats’ message didn’t get out because of people like Limbaugh and Sean Hannity of Fox News.
The Internet has also made a huge difference, as bloggers are making their views known by the thousands. In that respect the Internet is a great thing, as it has removed the political agenda from the oligopoly of the traditional (i.e. liberal) media and has generated a whole new discourse in the body politic.
The sooner Democrats come to understand that the US has undergone a tectonic shift in terms of voter preferences, the sooner they can re-enter the mainstream. Ironic isn’t it? Those committed to changing the face of society hate it when it changes and those committed to conserving society, appear to be changing it the most.