I strongly recommend that people read this excellent diary on how Webb's economic populist message, so strongly expressed in his rebuttal to Bush's State of the Union address last week, has been "effectively blacked out" by the ever-wondrous "Mainstream Media." As the diarist points out, there's a good reason for this:
I've argued for some time that the real bias in the media is not left or right per say. It is pro Wall Street. And never has this bias been more transparent than with the coverage of Jim Webb's response to the State of the Union address.[...]
Webb's speech should have spurred a lively discussion on the issues he raised. But instead is was effectively blacked out. So determined to sweep him under the rug, our Wall Street press even forfeited, to a large extent, the opportunity to champion his forceful and resounding opposition to George Bush's Iraq policy - which is something Wall Street, for the most part, does support.
So this is the situation we find ourselves in in 2007 America: a handful of Wall Street corporocrats, who have so infiltrated our mass media that they can almost make a speech broadcast live to millions of Americans disappear.
In sum, what we get from the "Wall Street owned, corporate controlled, national media" is not a serious, full discussion of Jim Webb's economic populist message, such as why corporate CEO's make 400 times what the average worker makes, and why wages and salaries are at an all-time low as a percentage of national income. Instead, we get "Wall Street sophistry at its finest."
Big surprise.
Why is this the case? Obviously, the powers that be are terrified of economic populism, including its questioning (gasp!) of the Free Trade mantra, not to mention Jim Webb's powerful "rebuke to the Washington Consensus of neoliberal trade policies, class warfare, corporate corruption of our political process, and unchecked greed at the expense of "national wealth."
In the end, the diarist concludes - and I agree 100%:
Everyone knows the game and everyone who values their careers plays along. But Jim Webb, by breaking the rules for one evening, gave us a glimpse in the dugout. A look behind the curtain if you will. That look on Anderson Cooper's face, as they cut back to him following the speech, reminded me of a scene from The Truman Show when Truman has figured out that his whole world is a facade. That illumination is what Jim Webb gave us Tuesday night. An opportunity to see, with blinding clarity, the facade that is the Wall Street owned, corporate controlled, national media.
Speaking of which, let us recall that the Washington Post endorsed corporatist and "free trade"/"outsourcing" advocate Harris Miller in the Democratic primary last year, in large part due to their concerns over Jim Webb's supposedly "strident populism on trade policy." And, although the Post praised Webb as "right to focus concern on the widening disparities of Americans' income and wealth," they then proceeded to shy away from Webb's "ideas about the problem's causes and possible antitodes." Populism swept under the rug again. What else is new.
Free trade policy as it stands nothing but Wall Street operating "laissez-faire" around the world. The free traders position is the EXTREME potition. Nobody is talking about repealing NAFTA or leaving the WTO. We're talking about re-negotiating these agreements so that workers have a more level playing field.
Anyone who believes that Corporations support free trade policy because they want to help lift workers in the third world out of poverty is completely delusional.
There needs to be checks and balances in EVERY institution whether it be the church, the government, or corporations.
I have long complained about the MSM bias, which is all about free trade economics. It was glaringly obvious even in the Washington Post's print edition coverage of Webb's primary victory. At the time I remember being very angry because they characterized his win as being solely about his anti-Iraq stance and credited his victory to "young, mostly anti-war bloggers."
While I think they got the part about the bloggers being instrumental to Webb's primary victory right, it almost seemed like the reporters for the WaPo lived in an alternate universe.
I recall most of the debates between Webb and his primary opponent being precisely about economic populism, fair trade versus free trade and outsourcing. Of course, everybody knew Webb was the anti-Iraq candidate and that played a very important role in our support. But so did Webb's economic policies.
Given that both Webb and his opponent were against the war in Iraq, the economy was the major disagreement between the two of them, as well as the electability issue. Supporters of Webb believed that his credentials as former military, former secretary of the Navy, etc., did put him in a stronger, more credible position as a war critic, so I don't discount the importance of the Iraqi war. But it certainly wasn't the only issue on the table, which is what you'd think if you just got your news from the WaPo and other mainstream media.
Even NPR, which is usually very good, portrayed Webb only in terms of his opposition to the war. In the primary, they virtually ignored Webb's criticism of the economy even in their day before the primary wrap up coverage. I was stunned by how incomplete their last piece before the primary was.
So Tocqueville really nailed this. Blogs may have to do the heavy lifting for a long time to get the word out that Webb is not a one trick pony but, rather, has important ideas on issues other than just Iraq.
I agree with Anonymous (almost always do), except on one somewhat minor point. Jim Webb's primary opponent actually supported the war until the Senate race against Webb. Then it was clear that Miller could lose if he continued to support the war. Miller's Johnny-come-lately opposition was half-hearted, and more along the lines that it wasn't handled well... The old "incompetence" tack.
And Anon makes an excellent point about NPR. It's increasingly a tough way to start the day. I am thinking of reactivation my media response group to tackle the daily feed of anti-populist, pro-administration pap it dishes up. Along with the White House in 2008, we need to take NPR back from the Gingrich-ites. Before the so-called Gingrich revolution, at least NPR tried to balance. The sad thing is so many progressives still believe everything they hear on NPR. And this is especially true given multiple studies documenting that NPR has mostly pro-administration, conservative "think"-tankers than other experts.
Jim Webb has brought back populism to the Democratic Party. We used to be more populist, but these days, Democrats have moved away from looking through the eyes of the little guy. Jim gives us a fresh look at populist thinking, and I for one am happy to see it.
We have lost touch with the underclass in this country. In fact the word class is the New C Word, (not my quote, but I can't remember who said it.) I don't know whether it's because we all have retirement plans in the stock market or if it's just the plain fact that too many Democrats are from upper class background, but I do know we have lost our way on issues concerning the little man, and as Jim Webb points out so eloquently, we need to refocus attention on those who have the least.
One thing I know. Poor rural people don't give a damn about the stock market. Up or down it has no effect on their lives.
Money never trickles down, only poverty.
Nick
Of course the election just ended but there will be more elections. Which brings the thought who else is Webb like that was sworn in with him in Congress?