Or how to lose friends and influence with the neocons.
Paul Craig Roberts used to be an influential guy. He was US Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during 1981-82 in the Reagan administration and a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute. He was also Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review, as well as a columnist for the Washington Times. Pretty impressive conservative resume all in all. He was quoted regularly by Rush and G. Gordon Liddy. So why is he now receiving death threats from the neocons supporters?
He became a critic of the War on Iraq and the policies of the Bush admin. He recognized that the "liberal media" is a myth perpetuated to help conservatives win elections and deceive the public. And he saw conservative values and traditions thrown out the window by the neocons in the White House and on the airwaves. He sees a frightening new America and as a good conservative (yes, I said it... I'm a flaming liberal, but I don't hate conservatives) he decided he had to speak out.
I'll let him tell his own story:
Not so long ago I would have identified the liberal media as the New York Times and Washington Post, CNN and the three TV networks, and National Public Radio. But both the Times and the Post fell for the Bush administration's lies about WMD and supported the US invasion of Iraq. On balance CNN, the networks, and NPR have not made an issue of the Bush administration's changing explanations for the invasion.
Apparently, Rush Limbaugh and National Review think there is a liberal media because the prison torture scandal could not be suppressed and a cameraman filmed the execution of a wounded Iraqi prisoner by a US Marine. Do the Village Voice and The Nation comprise the "liberal media"? The Village Voice is known for Nat Hentoff and his columns on civil liberties. Every good conservative believes that civil liberties are liberal because they interfere with the police and let criminals go free. The Nation favors spending on the poor and disfavors gun rights, but I don't see the "liberal hate" in The Nation's feeble pages that Rush Limbaugh was denouncing on C-Span.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
He's got a point about some conservatives being fairly delusional, but I think he goes way overboard with suggesting that even they want the press shut down or people arrested for criticizing the government.
What he also overlooks - most importantly - is that there is a large contingent of liberals who are just as irrational and just as delusional. For every neocon who worships Bush without thinking there's an equally extreme liberal who hates Bush without thinking. The truth lies somewhere in the middle and unreasoning extremists on either end of the spectrum really aren't representative of the majority in either party, even if they are the most outspoken.
Dave
2 - spiderleaf
Granted Dave, but unfortunately the delusional ones are the ones that seem to be making policy these days.
3 - Dave Nalle
That's debatable. For example, yesterday, when addressing the big pro-life rally, Bush pointedly avoiding saying anything in favor of a pro-life constitutional amendment despite their efforts to get him to commit to one. He just said it wasn't going to happen so drop the idea.
That's not exactly kowtowing to the religious right.
Dave
4 - spiderleaf
Fabulous. Glad to hear it. But all that proves is that the Repubs lied to their constituents to get votes (abortion and same sex marriage)... because they knew full well that a Constitutional ammendment requires 67 votes in the Senate and they didn't/ wouldn't have them.
In fact, the same far right is pretty peeved at being mislead during the campaign... quote from Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council:
"It was not articulated that way in the campaign," Perkins complained (re: same sex marriage)
5 - David Flanagan
Dave,
Excellent points. The fact is, if Mr. Roberts continues to believe that the liberal media is a "myth" after the whole Rathergate affair, then he is the one who is delusional.
Liberals love to quote this guy, but comparing neocons to Nazi-era brownshirts is just completely over the top. What Roberts has learned is that saying radical things is sometimes the only way to get noticed and to sell books.
Too bad he's willing to sacrifice his integrity for attention.
David
6 - spiderleaf
Aww, poor babies. One of 'your own' gets a conscience and he gets vilified by the 'true patriots'.
And David, perhaps you'd be kind enough to provide a list of all those 'liberal' types in the media that have as much airtime, influence and extreme views as:
Rush
Hannity
Coulter
Ingraham
O'Reilly
North
Buchanan
Scarborough
Novak
Carlson
WSJ Editorial page
etc. etc.
Hmm, it would probably look like this:
Chomsky
Zinn
Conason
Frisk
... now how often do you see those far lefties on TV or hear them on the radio? Just screaming "liberal media" does not make it so.
7 - Tim Hall
The existance of a crypto-fascist fringe at the extremes of the 'conservative movement' should not be a matter for debate; anyone who denies it's existance is probably part of that crypto-fascist fringe themselves.
What is a matter for debate and concern is the size of this fringe, and how much influence it has.
8 - David Flanagan
spiderleaf,
You are kidding, right? Okay, here we go off the top of my head in no specific order:
Brokaw
Jennings
Chung
Oprah
Rather
Couric
Stern
Garofalo
Franken
Moore
Baldwin
Asner
Letterman
Wallace
Rooney
Rall
Krugman
Dowd
trudeau...
Pause, take a breath!
I could go on here, but I think I've made my point and THANK YOU for playing celebrity bingo!
David
9 - andy marsh
You forgot Streisand, Robbins, Sarandon, Mayne, Springsteen, Bon Jovi and just about every hollywood actor with a grade school education that think they need to speak to the American public and are given all morning with talking heads like Curic and the rest of the day on shows like Okrah.
10 - spiderleaf
wow, you're pretty delusional David.
Half of that list is not as far left as my list is far right... these are some:
Brokaw
Jennings
Chung
Oprah
Rather
Couric
Wallace
Rooney
these are not examples of "far left" opinions buddy. They don't scream about how Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied. The War in Iraq was a mistake.
How many of them treated the clinton admin with as much derision as did everyone else? right. all of them. they just report both sides of the issue, which in your view makes them 'biased'.
and the others, like Franken and Moore are not on the mainstream airwaves even half as much as the list I posted.
Try again.
The true far left list was the one I posted, the counterbalance to the far right list... Letterman? Stern? give me a break buddy, you obviously have no idea what it means to be far left.
11 - Mark Saleski
yow. if you guys think people like brokaw are in the same spin league as folks like hannity or coulter well...i just don't know what to say.
sometimes you mistake a lack of conservative ideology for the presence of a liberal one.
12 - spiderleaf
you guys are hilarious -- Hollywood entertainers vs. "reporters" and "opinion columnists" on all cable channels and airwaves and network news...
that would be really funny if it weren't so sad.
13 - Shark
Flanagan, you left Mother Theresa off yer list.
That had to be an oversight!
And where are all the cartoon characters?!
14 - Dave Nalle
The liberal advocates in the media are far more numerous and far more prominent even if some of them are relatively moderate. We're talking about balancing a dozen conservatives whose main outlets are Fox News and talk radio against everyone on every other media outlet in the US, including almost everyone in hollywood and almost every other person in the news media ane everyone writing scripts for TV or producing TV shows, etc, plus every newspaper in the US except maybe 3.
Yes, in the last 10 years conservatives have made some headway - 10 years ago there were virtually no conservatives with a national voice in any forum at all. But it's still a david vs. goliath situation for them. Perhaps because they are so few in number the conservatives who do have access to the media tend to be a bit more extremist.
Small note - I'm not sure Letterman is all that liberal. And someone above listed Pat Buchanan as a conservative and he's a Liberal/Fascist.
As for this guy Roberts, he's like a Zell Miller for the liberals, one guy who got pissed off about the way they were personally treated by the guys they thought were their buddies and flipped out and went to the opposte political extreme. It's not a mentality I uderstand at all, but apparently it happens.
Dave
15 - Shark
Roberts' testimony only confirms what I've been saying for four years: that this brand of 'conservatism' is about as far from true conservative ideals as one can get.
It's time the few rational people in the GOP wake up and try to 'retake' their party from the neo-con nut-bars and the facist Christoids.
16 - spiderleaf
Pat Buchanan is a liberal? A Jew and black hating liberal... yeah... riiiiiiight....
17 - Mark Saleski
seriously, though conservatives may not agree with the general take on the media in the book What Liberal Media?, it deserves a look as there are some angles on the media (beyond just liberal/conservative) that you may not have considered.
i sure didn't.
18 - Dave Nalle
>>Pat Buchanan is a liberal? A Jew and black hating liberal... yeah... riiiiiiight....<<
If you think racism is a characteristic of conservatism you're too ignorant to engage in a discussion with educated adults.
Racism is independent of political philosophy and exists among both liberals and conservatives. Need I even point out the extreme anti-jewish sentiment among many black liberal leaders? Or the paternalistic anti-black policies of the democratic party for the last 30 years?
Dave
19 - spiderleaf
If you are one of those so-called 'adults' then I agree. You are too closedminded and open to propaganda to engage in an actual conversation.
Yes, racism exists regardless of political affiliation, hell, Senator Byrd was a member of the KKK until he saw the light and started working for change.
But really, if you can claim with a straight face that Buchanan is a liberal you've proved that you are completely ignorant of what it means to be a liberal.
20 - andy marsh
Mark - that's the difference though...at least in Coulters case, she doesn't pretend to be unbiased...neither does hannity. But when you look at broadcast and print media, they try to pretend not to be biased. Dan Rather to this day, believes he did nothing wrong!
21 - Tim Hall
>>But really, if you can claim with a straight face that Buchanan is a liberal you've proved that you are completely ignorant of what it means to be a liberal.
The Wingnutosphere would call Joseph Stalin a liberal.
Anyone who can't tell the difference between Stalinism with Liberalism is also too ignorant to engage in a discussion with educated adults.
22 - andy marsh
well, considering that most of what I hear from liberals amounts to nothing but socialism...and since Stalin was a socialist....I guess I'll go play in the sandbox!!! I can't figure it out!
23 - Mike Kole
Interestingly, Buchanan was one of the first 'conservatives' to speak out against the war. He has consistently done so.
Buchanan might more accurately be called a 'nationalist' or 'nationalist populist'. For instance, he is anti-NAFTA mainly on protectionist grounds. He is fairly anti-immigrant. He is pro-union. He is fearful of technology in general. Buchanan agrees with Ralph Nader on a surprisingly large range of issues. I get the feeling that some of the previous comments came from people who have heard one or two commentaries from Buchanan, or perhaps are familiar with his role as a Nixon speechwriter, and simply assume all the rest from that.
All of this shows what I don´t like about political labels. 'Liberal' and 'conservative' can be so widely interpreted, beyond their original political meaning with regards to relative change from status quo. 'Socialists' have the Socialist Party. 'Communists' have the Communist Party. 'Libertarians' have the Libertarian Party. There is no 'Liberal Party' or 'Conservative Party', but rather, broad coalitions that may or may not agree on much of anything, uniting under the banners of the Democratic Party and Republican Party. Just as one big generalization that pretty well holds- the average Ohio Republican is more 'liberal' than the average Indiana Democrat. For comparison, I´ll offer Ohio Republican governor Bob Taft v. Indiana US Senator Democrat Evan Bayh.
I'm glad Roberts has spoken out against the war. It's a shame he used the imagery he chose.
24 - Dave Nalle
By the classic definition of a Liberal Buchanan is certainly not a Liberal, but we don't use that term anymore. By that definition the entire Democrat party isn't Liberal. Buchanan does fit in well with the current liberal/progressive movement which is anti-Jew, anti-industry, anti-immigrant, highly suspicious of nebulous government conspiracies, and in favor of all sorts of statist anti-federalist policies. These folks don't fit in the definition of classic Liberalism at all.
Technically Buchanan is a statist/socialist and he does have a lot in common with Joe Stalin. He gets mistaken for a conservative because some of his social views fit in with the religious right, but truthfully most of the religious right's agenda is more Liberal than conservative in the classic sense.
If we want to go back to classical definitions of Liberalism I'm probably one of the more Liberal people on here.
Dave
25 - spiderleaf
Dave, you're not a liberal, you're just ignorant, as your comments bring into stark relief.