Press Action ::: The Washington Post Elevates Insider Wisdom

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

The Washington Post Elevates Insider Wisdom - Makes Popular Outrage Invisible

By Larry Yates

‘Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks’
By Jim VandeHei and Shalaigh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 7, 2005; Page A01

Strong antiwar comments in recent days by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders’ rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year...

This is a perfect example of something the Washington Post indulges in frequently—an article with little news content, played as news, and reflecting the “current wisdom” in Washington. This “current wisdom” is, of course, always conservative, not in the ideological sense, but in the sense that it reinforces the existing relationships of power and privilege, and dismisses or completely ignores relevant outside forces, especially grassroots democratic movements.

The only “news” in the story is that some Democratic politicians (referred to in the headline as Democrats, not as the moderates or hawks that they are) are less willing than other Democratic politicians to attack the Bush administration on the war in Iraq. Since national politicians are constantly trimming their sails to the perceived winds, there is little news here. We can confidently expect that every politician mentioned in the story will have a new position in three months. In addition, it is to be expected that Steny Hoyer, with a more conservative district, will be less antiwar than Nancy Pelosi, representing San Francisco.

The immediate hard news that is ignored in this story, of course, is that polls overwhelmingly show that grassroots Democrats—the people on whose votes and donations the quoted politicians all rely for their core support—are outraged by the war, and are displeased that Democratic leaders still show any support for it. Pelosi and Dean, as national leaders of the party, are being forced to oppose the war to maintain any credibility, while more parochial party figures like Hoyer and Rahm Emmanuel are more cautious. The story shows us the effect of the Democratic grassroots rebellion, but does not show us the rebellion itself, encouraging us to maintain the illusion that these politicians are making independent judgments that have no relationship to the power or passion of their constituencies.

The even more deeply hidden hard news underlying this story is that there is a well-organized anti-war movement which has been busy and consistent since before this war began, which is active in every community of any size in this country and which has successfully made its case, especially in communities of color, despite getting almost no attention from the corporate media. The Post never covers the anti-war movement as a serious political force, as it does the so-called Christian right. Yet in less than three years the anti-war movement, despite almost no support from national politicians or media, has gained majority support for some of its most controversial positions. Meanwhile the Christian right, despite having had supposed friends in the White House for most of the past 25 years, has not been able to reverse Roe v. Wade, and has barely held the line on other issues important to it. But the Christian right has friends in Washington’s inner circle, so the Post takes it seriously. The antiwar movement’s only source of strength is grassroots action, a social phenomenon the Post refuses to recognize.

The Post is operating as Pravda did in the old Soviet Union—sending signals of how we should think, written in the guise of news, while simply omitting the experiences and actions of ordinary people—and the impacts of their actions. This mythology, which seems to reinforce realism, in fact promotes a view of U.S. politics that only makes sense to inside players in Washington. All that matters, the Post tells us, is the arguments among the apparatchiks—and the more cautious apparatchiks are, we are assured, usually right in the end, because, after all, nothing ever really changes. There may be some kind of social turmoil occurring out there somewhere in the hinterlands or among certain disaffected and minority elements, but it will make no real difference in the end.

Meanwhile, we are living through an extraordinary period in U.S. history. The US population has been subjected to the most expensive and elaborate pro-war propaganda campaign in history, and nevertheless a majority has begun to grasp that the antiwar movement, whose resources are tiny in comparison, is more correct than Fox News and the Republican Party and most of the Democratic Party and the Washington Post and the New York Times. This has come about because of some unprecedented events that have had profound national impacts, including the collapse of the federal government as a service provider and regulator, exemplified by the Katrina debacle but even more by environmental retreats, and the complete subjugation of our armed forces operations to the marketing plan of one political party, as exemplified by the “Mission Accomplished” moment. All of this history-making change is invisible to the Post, which still suggests that tomorrow morning the most cautious and predictable politicians in Washington will turn out to have been right all along.

After all, the smart money is on Hoover, that is LBJ, that is Nixon, that is Newt Gingrich, that is, oh yeah, Dick Cheney.

It’s interesting that the Post recently covered Rosa Parks as cloyingly as they did, since the Post’s basic attitude is that the work of the Rosa Parks of this world is at best an extraneous storyline noted only for the amusement of its readers. The idea that Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan or Cynthia McKinney could ever actually make a difference is a joke to the Post. As for Leslie Cagan or Larry Holmes, who are they? (Yes, I know they have been mentioned—in the Style section. Whereas Steny Hoyer, an inconsequential figure who is unknown to and irrelevant to the average American, is presented on the front page as a significant figure of national stature whose word is to be taken seriously.

Let’s be realistic, says the Post. If the Democrats go too far too fast in opposition to the war, they will (somehow) be punished. But if they lag behind the increasingly antiwar US population, if they fail to provide any leadership in a moment of national crisis, if they treat popular outrage as something to be mollified and ignored, they will be allowed to continue to share in the wonderful world of insider politics.

After all, if social change from the grassroots was really possible, women would have the vote, slavery would be abolished, and ordinary working people (check out this crazy idea!) would get free money from the government when they reached retirement age.

Larry Yates has been an organizer and activist since the late sixties. He lives in Maurertown, Va. For more of his writings, visit http://www.user.shentel.net/llyates/.

More from Larry Yates