Part 2 Why we vote against ourselves?

Part 2 of Why Americans Vote Against Their Own Interests

In Part 1, we discussed how the development of fundamentalism as a growth industry caused it to radically revamp its teachings of old. And how this made it attractive to the rich and powerful (justifying their position in society) and business (helping convince rank and file Americans that facts either didn’t matter or weren’t true).

Today we will take on the dumbing-down and of American journalism and its swerve to become a tool or the radical right wing.

Sinking Journalism

Beginning with the Nixon White House, the radical right has continuously attacked the press as part of its march to power. This was partly an effort to simply recalibrate the scales – moving the center of American philosophical thought to mid-stream conservatism, where the Radical Right didn’t seem so radical. It was also an attempt to discredit the press and thus reality. And more recently, part of this has been to make the press partisan. Several factors contributed to our modern partisan press.

The attack on the press has been long-lived, aggressive, and from many directions (political, commercial, and religious entities have all attacked the press). And the press, weary of this attack began to slowly crumble in a number of ways. Bit by bit, it found itself adding tag lines to articles to express outlandish or unsupportable propositions, so as not to be accused of bias. From here, it became less willing to investigate, much less report on, the factual realities necessary to sort out claims and counter-claims. This, of course, left more and more people on their own, needed to make decisions based on personal judgment and the pronouncements of the authority figures in their lives, rather than an understanding of facts and a dispassionate analysis of what those facts would portend.

This shift has occurred subtly, and for quite some time was denied by the press itself – both collectively in public, and by its membership in private. However, this shift was and is very real, and reinforces the American public’s inability to rational decisions.

As the news organizations began to view themselves as media (rather than press), they developed a need for eyeballs. Its first goal was no longer news, but volume and profitability – an idea that has been repeated hailed by all sort of leaders as good and inevitable. However, the ideal was lost, that the press had a higher calling than other profitable enterprises. And with this loss came a reduction in editorial standards.

Media should be entertaining and uncontroversial. It should take one’s mind off of the everyday stresses and strains of life – not force one to consider how to better live their life. Media is not art, nor press, nor anything else that is noble Media often caters to that which is most base in mankind – such as ourselves apart from other, who we look down upon in order feel better about ourselves. And lord knows that today, most American career’s, do not provide the positive sense of self that would limit our need seek these unfortunate forms of self-fulfillment.

The American press did not have to begin catering cravenly to corporate interests. The move toward being media, or entertainment, might have only been accompanied with a reduction of content, and a change of focus to the trivial – like coverage of the girls Spears.

Wall Street and corporate CEOs, however, found a significant financial interest in consolidating and enlarging any form of commercial enterprise – including media organizations. The American press had a number of (political) protections in place against control by hegemony of elitist money or political interests. However, pressures to consolidate news organizations coincided with the desires of certain business and religious leaders to gain political power.

Their drive for political power fit into their larger pattern of enriching themselves off of the work of others – and needing to remove the yoke of government to accomplish this goal. Once again, these interests depended on the denial of facts and reality. So, on the one hand, there were players desiring to profit off the consolidation of news/media resources, and on the others were players who could grant this wish who needed a way to stifle the open sharing of knowledge and reality.

Through the Regan and both Bush administrations, we have seen a constant flow of gifts to those who did or would own media. These gifts took the form of relaxing or even eliminating the long-standing controls that ensured that we had a fair and free press in America. In return, the new owners of media modified the message they broadcast to fit with the needs of religion and business. In most cases, this meant that they ignored, obscured, or misrepresented facts and reality in their ‘news’ reporting. And even this started in small ways.

But it has grown. Several months ago there was a move on the floor of the House to initiate impeachment proceedings against the Vice President. Even if this were not a very serious issue, the political drama that ensued should have been enough to ensure that the event headlined the nightly news and the front pages of every significant newspaper in the country.

In their typical fashion, the Republicans attempted to bottle up this move with parliamentary votes. They typically do this as long as they can on each and every issue that their corporate masters dislike. But, if this effort fails, and they may be held accountable to voters for, being among the minority to vote against a potentially popular issue/bill/maneuver, they will switch their vote so as not to endanger their ‘moderate’ reputation amongst their constituency. Safe voting is a tradition long cherished in D.C., but one that is greatly facilitated by an abetting press.

At the beginning of this impeachment vote, they had hopes that enough democrats would defect so that they could claim that a bi-partisan consensus disapproved of the move to impeach. But apparently they got cold feet, or felt that they could create embarrassment for the Democratic leadership by crossing over. So they began changing their votes to be in favor of impeachment and thereby ensure the passage of this maneuver.

The Democratic leadership (for reasons that most of us can’t understand) was afraid to impeach, and bent the rules of voting so that the leadership could caucus and then the representatives themselves could switch their votes to ensure that debate on the floor was tabled to a committee for ‘further discussion’.

The House started with Democrats on one side of the issue and Republicans on the other, then with no change to the circumstances or resolution, both sides crossed over (en masse) and voted for the other side’s position. The move to impeach was referred to committee, but not without historic political drama.

Again, even if this were a trivial issue, it should have been reported boldly just because crazy our representatives behavior was. But, if you didn’t watch live on C-Span, or pay attention to one of a few progressive blogs, you never heard or saw any coverage of this historic occasion. Not one network, not one significant paper, reported on the activities that occurred that day in the House of Representatives.

Clearly, the word was out: Don’t report on the impeachment issue. Similarly, bad news isn’t reported, and good news is hyped regarding the war in Iraq. Misinformation is reported about the both the victims and relief efforts from hurricane Katrina. The list goes on and on, but most of what is known as the MSM (mainstream media) continues in this fashion, and even taking fight against anyone who points it out.

Paralleling this change has been the rise of the political pundit (PP). The PP represents both a reaction to criticism by the radical right and part of the shift from news to media. What used to be a columnist with a point of view, has become a mouthpiece for pre-determined ‘talking-points’. This individual is occasionally directly (but discretely) on the payroll of some organization or interest group (including parts of the federal government), who want to sell a certain message to the American public. And even when the connection is less direct, there are book contracts, speaking engagements, career opportunities, and surprising high income potential for these individuals. It is exceedingly more lucrative to shill while feigning a base in sound thinking, than to present a position based on sound thinking – without an agenda.

It would be naive to suggest that such shenanigans have never before occurred within the American press. But what we see today far overwhelms any historic examples of misleading the public. In part, this is because the consolidation of ‘media’ has made it so much easier to control the message – keeping everyone on board and under control.

Today’s press is comprised in large degrees of entertainment and fiction masquerading is news. Industry, political elites, and fundamentalist leaders have convinced us to ignore facts take their word for things. To this sick mixture has been an effort to fundamentally control facts themselves, which will be our next post: Thinking Lost

Part1 of Summary

As part of my returning to posting, I’ll be switching directions a bit.

I think that the answer to my original question is at hand, which I will summarize in three or four posts beginning below. After that, we’ll start to consider what's up with economics. In my opinion the field of economics is far from being a science. In fact, many of its fundamental beliefs, theories, and assumptions may be off course – and increasingly skewed to support globalism and its march to global hegemony and social stratification. I’ll be using this blog to 'think loudly' about this topic. You’re welcome to join in with your ideas.

If you’ve been following old posts, you know that this blog was conceived to understand why the American public could continually vote against its own interests over an extended period of time. It seems like we, as a nation, have encountered a 'perfect storm' of adverse political conditions that have interfered with people’s judgment and thought processes. The conditions which have brewed this perfect storm include:
- The movement of fundamentalist religion to co-opt greed as a desirable and honorable quality.
- The almost total loss of journalistic standards in this country.
‘Privatization’ of thinking.
- The commercialization of the legislative process in Washington D.C. and elsewhere.

I would suggest that a great number of conspiracies have been hatched and executed under the three umbrella gestalts above. But I would also suggest that the place, at which we have arrived, has been driven largely by Darwinian forces, and that the various conspiracies work together through groupthink accident rather than as part of an elaborate plan. Having said that; the accrual of power to a few, requires less accident of coordination every day. Put otherwise, ‘market forces’ in religion, thinking, news, and politics have created a world managed by a greedy elite, and this is the natural course unless common men and women stand up demand reasonable government, which necessitates regulation of the outlandish power of the few.

This article isn’t ready for http://www.wikipedia.com/, and probably won’t ever be. I'm not of a mind to do the scholarly efforts, but that doesn't mean it isn't ready for you to read, consider and discuss.

Rising Fundamentalism
Let's consider a simplified view of the rise of Fundamentalism in America since the 1960s. Fundamentalism gained a unique growth opportunity as our country grappled with desegregation, especially for Southern schools. Parents who didn't want their children integrated needed a schooling option, and fundamentalist churches and leaders provided this option. In contrast, in the North, where strong public school systems were more ingrained in the culture, suburban migration served as the outlet to parents who wanted to avoid desegregation.

At the same time, radio ministries were evolving into television ministries, and these were providing a path to riches for certain fundamentalist leaders. Fundamentalist religion was slowly evolving to become a growth industry with big payoffs (and no pesky shareholders or SEC).[1] Religious academies created a new and important channel to growing congregations and revenue.

Ultimately, this has culminated in the super-churches with congregations that number well into five-figures. Leaders of these super-churches spend their time as religious CEOs. They organize and oversee those who provide the ministry of the church, debate and agree on issue, priorities, and policies with their lay leadership and fellow religious CEOs. And they often spend time with politicians, travel by limo and private plane/helicopter, drive fancy cars and live in big homes.

Unfortunately for this thriving fundamentalist leadership, the Carter administration, and then the Regan administration, began to eliminate the tax-exempt status of religious schools due to the schools' segregationist policies. This threatened the growth prospects and revenue streams of fundamentalist leaders, while hindering these schools continuing efforts to offer a segregationist outlet. There was reason to be concerned if children returned to secular schools where they might be exposed to alternative points of view.

To counter this challenge, the religious leadership realized their need for political power in Washington DC. To these ends, they sought an emotional issue around which to rally the troops. Their core rallying issue became the elimination of abortion. And handily enough, it was a holier than thou issue that would appeal easily to fundamentalist followers. This came to pass despite the fact that, until this time, fundamentalist leaders expressed virtually no concerns about abortion. In fact many of them actually endorsed the decision in Roe v. Wade.

As with any growth industry, a time comes when it must break out of its niche to sustain growth. And, to do this fundamentalism had to confront reality – which is inherently secular. If too much of life can be explained without religion or 'faith', then the need for, and power of, religion naturally diminishes. Science and technology have brought us wonderful new understandings of the world around us. With understanding, we overcome fear which lessens the need for faith. So, the ongoing growth of knowledge actively shrank the audience of potential new converts. And new converts are necessary to feed the growth machine of modern American fundamentalism. Consequently, fundamentalism has had little choice but to wage an active war against ‘secular’ knowledge.

In a different, but related, vein, fundamentalism needed a base among the elites, of power and wealth, in order to develop its own power. Many of the teachings of fundamentalism have historically been at odds with, and distasteful to, those of power and wealth. Accordingly, the fundamentalist brand[2] had two challenges to confront in order to continue growing: 1) limit the impact of scientific knowledge, 2) and gain a base within the power and wealth elites.

The rise of health and wealth Christianity provided cover for the growing wealth of fundamentalist leaders, while providing an incentive for the rich and powerful to convert. The idea that success (no matter how derived) was God's reward for being good and pious (which amounts to making the claim that one is born again), provided justification for class stratification and the sanctified self-serving beliefs of the rich and powerful[3] It has also done much to force religion into politics, while simultaneously corrupting both.

Anything one does (even politically), to increases one’s wealth, is inherently godly behavior, because it leads to the rewards that demonstrate God’s favor. Some would argue that this is an unfair construction of health and wealth Christianity - but any such argument ignores the fact that this is how health and wealth Christians explain and justify their own behavior. Ultimately, their arguments smack of tautological thinking, but faith isn't constrained by the niceties of good logic.

Fundamentalism has always had an uneasy relationship with facts. It has always imposed bible literalism to deny observable reality. But, in the past, the key points of bible literalism served mostly to appeal to followers and maintain the control of religious leaders. Denying natural selection supported the idea that people (like you and me) are a special creation of God. From there it is a small step to take pride in one's life, no matter how limited or challenged. In essence, it had roots in populism whereby the lowly on earth would be the chosen in heaven. Creationism allowed one to join a club that provided the psychic rewards that made life worth living[4], even if many of these rewards came in the form of disdaining others who weren't part of the club. But it is common for all sorts of fundamentalists, all over the world, to rely on disrespect for others as a basis to overcome one’s own insecurities.

From this, it becomes clear how far health and wealth fundamentalism has skewed from its populist roots. Here and now, rewards on earth are a sign that one has earned ones ‘chosen’ status before the eyes of God.

Importantly, the fundamentalist rejection of facts also fit the needs of big business. We were reaching a point where the public’s knowledge about issues[5] began to interfere with the unfettered self control of big business. And thus was born an opportunity, and a point of synergy, between business and fundamentalism. Ironically, these two forces had long been at odds. But now the question could, without blushing, be asked: who should one believe? Should we trust the secular scientist who believed in facts and observation, or a business leader who declared his faith? And if business leaders were more acceptable than scientists, academics and researchers, then the influence of facts over political policy, and their ramifications for business, would be radically diminished.

Reinforcing this, facts were reinforcing inconvenient truths (thank you Al Gore), such as: the need for individuals to consume less and work together more cooperatively. In denying facts, we legitimize driving an oversize, highly consumptive and highly polluting vehicle (as just one example); thus serving individual egos and corporate profits. From this basis the synergies of reality avoidance become manifold, complex, and powerful.



[1] The scope of businesses around the fundamentalist movement is breathtaking if one isn’t already aware of this sector. Book publishing, educational materials and textbook publishing, media production companies, media broadcast companies, musical acts/venues/promotion/publishing, and religious materials all fall under this umbrella.
[2] Brand is a fair characterization in as much as fundamentalists are unabashed about their co-opting the discipline of marketing meet their needs.
[3] Such as that: greed is good; the rich 'earned' their wealth the hard way; and, the idea that everyone who isn’t wealthy is lazy, or dull.
[4] Ironically due to faith in the hereafter.
[5] Issues like: finite resources; pollution; and economic inequities.