About senator-elect Jim Webb, the man who has been called "the most sophisticated conservative reactionary to run on the Democratic ticket since Grover Cleveland", from George F. Will, the most sophisticated conservative reactionary to write for the Washington Post op-ed page:

"Already Too Busy for Civility


When the president again asked "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "That's between me and my boy." Webb told The Post:
"I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall. No offense to the institution of the presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration. [But] leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is."
Webb certainly has conveyed what he is: a boor. Never mind the patent disrespect for the presidency. Webb's more gross offense was calculated rudeness toward another human being -- one who, disregarding many hard things Webb had said about him during the campaign, asked a civil and caring question, as one parent to another. When -- if ever -- Webb grows weary of admiring his new grandeur as a "leader" who carefully calibrates the "symbolic things" he does to convey messages, he might consider this: In a republic, people decline to be led by leaders who are insufferably full of themselves."

Another parallel between the atacker and attackee may have been picked up on in the comments:

"...Finally, let us not forget that our elected officials, Republicans and Democrats alike, all use conversational english and are human...unlike you. Get a life."

"...and the pot is claiming the kettle has become a pompous poseur."

Saving the Elephant (Majority)

The Republican Party needs to find a way to get its image across. It has been demonstrated that the American public responds positively to the social and cultural values espoused by the GOP, but nonetheless the Republicans were defeated soundly in this year's elections. This happened in part because the Democratic party was able to recruit candidates who adopted parts of the
Republicans' previously successful agenda. The Republicans must find a way to reconnect their party with the values they stand for. Rights for the unborn is an example of an issue in which the GOP must firmly reconnect its image with a popular image. To that end, I suggest the "Unborn Elehant Campaign", in which Republicans utilize newly developed technology to gain back their base.

Corporate Media Bias II

James Q. Wilson, writing in City Journal:

"But in the Vietnam era, an important restraint on sectarian partisanship still operated: the mass media catered to a mass audience and hence had an economic interest in appealing to as broad a public as possible. Today, however, we are in the midst of a fierce competition among media outlets, with newspapers trying, not very successfully, to survive against 24/7 TV and radio news coverage and the Internet.
As a consequence of this struggle, radio, magazines, and newspapers are engaged in niche marketing, seeking to mobilize not a broad market but a specialized one, either liberal or conservative. Economics reinforces this partisan orientation. Prof. James Hamilton has shown that television networks take older viewers for granted but struggle hard to attract high-spending younger ones. Regular viewers tend to be older, male, and conservative, while marginal ones are likely to be younger, female, and liberal.
Thus the financial interest that radio and television stations have in attracting these marginal younger listeners and viewers reinforces their ideological interest in catering to a more liberal audience. Focusing ever more sharply on the mostly bicoastal, mostly liberal elites, and with their more conservative audience lost to Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, mainstream outlets like the New York Times have become more nakedly partisan.
And in the Iraq War, they have kept up a drumbeat of negativity that has had a big effect on elite and public opinion alike. Thanks to the power of these media organs, reduced but still enormous, many Americans are coming to see the Iraq War as Vietnam redux."

A Fair and Balanced Cup

"Everywhere, unthinking mobs of “independent thinkers” wield tired clichés like cudgels, pummeling those who dare question “enlightened” dogma. -Jonah Goldberg, Starbucks coffee cup

From the New Republic, whining about pervasive conservative presence in liberals' drinks:

Everyone knows that liberals love Starbucks. A 2005 Zogby poll found that partisans of the left were twice as likely to go to the world music-playing, fair trade- embracing, Seattle-based coffee chain as they were to patronize Dunkin' Donuts--a well-known peddler of red-state values. No surprise that Bill O'Reilly has declared that he "will not go in a Starbucks," preferring, according to Newsweek, "a coffee shop in Manhasset, Long Island, where cops and firemen hang out." So what is Jonah Goldberg, the unflappably chummy editor-at-large of National Review, doing in not just one but thousands of Starbucks coffeehouses across the land? Goldberg's own magazine has lumped Starbucks-goers in with those moon bats who "speak French, allow Janet Jackson to show both her breasts, create a cradle-to-grave welfare state ... read The New York Times every day, scramble the satellite signal for Fox News, and worship [their] new leader, Michael Moore." But walk into any Starbucks, and there he is: Jonah Goldberg, on the side of a Starbucks coffee cup. Each white-and-green paper cup comes complete with a celebrity quote, and, on no less than five million of them, you can read Goldberg sound off on the "unthinking mobs of `independent thinkers'" hammering those "who dare question `enlightened' dogma." And Goldberg isn't alone. Spend enough time in Starbucks and you'll see cups with quotes from former Bush speechwriter David "Axis of Evil" Frum ("In politics, partisanship is a force that can make things happen"); right-wing radio chatterbox and Passion of the Christ groupie Michael Medved ("The biggest problem with mass media isn't low quality--it's high quantity"); and Discovery Institute bioethicist Wesley J. Smith ("The morality of the 21st Century will depend on how we respond to this simple but profound question: Does every human life have equal moral value simply and merely because it is human?"). You can even sip a purpose-driven latte with words from evangelical mega-pastor Rick Warren ("You were made by God and for God, and until you understand that, life will never make sense"). All of which raises the question: After spending so much time bashing the blue-state hordes at Starbucks, how did conservatives end up on their cups? In early 2005, the higher-ups at Starbucks decided, in an effort to "get people talking," to start printing quotes on every cup the company produced. The series, affectionately dubbed "The Way I See It," grew out of an appreciation for what p.r. manager Carole Pucik calls the "centuries-old tradition of the coffeehouse as a place to gather, share ideas, and enjoy delicious beverages." ... And, while the company would never admit that it's doing diversity outreach, it drops all the right code words. It seeks, according to Pucik, a "balance of viewpoints and experiences when evaluating contributions to the program." The contributors "include a wide range of people with varying points of view, experiences, and priorities." And so on. As Goldberg puts it, you would think you had stumbled into an admissions department meeting at Brown.

Post-Election Myths

Be Careful What You Believe
The myths of '06.
By Rich Lowry

Elections produce two things — new elected officials and bogus conventional wisdom. Once they gain widespread circulation, erroneous beliefs about elections are difficult to reverse and can be nearly as important as who won or lost.

Here are seven myths rapidly gaining acceptance among conservatives, liberals or both: — Republican losses were in keeping with typical setbacks for a party holding the White House in the sixth year of a presidency. Conservatives reassure themselves that the “six-year itch” has cost the party in power roughly 30 seats on average since World War II, so this year’s losses aren’t remarkable. But as liberal blogger Kevin Drum points out, most of the big “itches” came prior to the past 20 years when gerrymandering got more sophisticated. Reagan lost only five seats in his sixth year, and Clinton only five (although he had already suffered a wipeout in 1994). For Democrats to win 29 seats despite all the advantages of incumbency enjoyed by the GOP is a big deal. — The conservative base, discouraged by the GOP’s doctrinal impurity, didn’t show up at the polls. This is the bedtime story conservatives are telling themselves to show that whatever ails the party will be cured simply by becoming more conservative. In 2004, however, conservatives were 34 percent of the electorate and liberals 21 percent. In 2006, the numbers were almost indistinguishable — conservatives were 32 percent of the electorate and liberals 20 percent. The GOP didn’t lose the election with its base, but with independents, who broke against them 57 percent to 39 percent. — Republicans lost because they weren’t fiscally conservative enough. Another conservative illusion. A thought experiment: Which cuts in government would have, in and of themselves, increased the party’s popularity? Expanding the widely unpopular gap in coverage in the Medicare prescription-drug bill — the so-called doughnut hole — to produce entitlement savings? Cutting student loans? Even “earmarked” spending for special projects back home tends — sadly — to be popular with local constituencies. The GOP was better about squeezing discretionary spending during the past two years than it had been during Bush’s first term. Politically, it gained little from it. — The GOP was too socially conservative for voters. This chestnut is trotted out every time Republicans lose an election. This time it is even less plausible than usual. Seven out of eight constitutional amendments banning gay marriage passed this year, often outperforming Republican candidates. That Democrats went out of their way not to antagonize social-conservative voters this year was one of the keys to their success. — The election was a great victory for conservative and moderate Democrats. If Democratic leaders gave their candidates leeway to take socially conservative positions, this year’s new crop of Democrats still isn’t a departure from the party’s overwhelming liberalism. A few attention-grabbing, successful Democratic House candidates, Health Shuler of North Carolina and Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, are truly conservative. But only about five of the 29 Democratic winners in the House can be considered social conservatives. They will be lonely. — The election was a decisive ideological rejection of conservatism. Liberal opinion writers love this one. But various scandals, Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq War all played major roles in degrading the GOP brand. Liberals cannot count on conservatives being associated with corruption, incompetence or an unpopular war forever. — President Bush now must give up on the Iraq War. The rebuke to Bush was unquestionably an expression of voters’ frustration with the progress of the war, but they are not ready to give up yet. According to pollster Whit Ayers, less than one-third of voters favor withdrawal. A late-October New York Times poll found that 55 percent of the public favors sending more troops to Iraq, a position now endorsed by the paper’s liberal editorial board. Bush still has a window to take decisive action to reverse the downward slide in Iraq. Elections are wonderful things. It’s the election myths we can do without.© 2006 by King Features Syndicate

Myths

As defined by O'Shaughnessy, myths are stories (untrue or true, but often embellished) accepted by a culture which help define the culture's aspirations, its purpose, and its sense of identity. Myths become part of societies' fabric, and O'Shaughnessy argues, debunking of myths can sometimes be harmful.
Myths are helpful for propaganda because they can easily capitalize on shared national or cultural feelings and associations to be used for the propagandist's advantage. The myth is an easy way to create a "message" that will relate to and be understood by a large audience.

America has been influenced by many myths about its founding. These include myths about the discovery of America, myths about the early settlement of the colonies which became the United States and myths about the "founding fathers" of the republic.
The first category, myths about the discovery of America is an example of myths that have undergone historical re-evaluation. Colombus and other explorers were long viewed as heroes for their courage in face of adversity in exploring the New World. As a result, Native Americans who stood in the way of the conquerors were viewed as savages unworthy of sympathy. This perception allowed for discriminatory policies towards Native Americans such as Andrew Johnson's infamous forced displacement of Native American tribes in which so many died it became known as the Trail of Tears. Recently, however, this perception of the Age of Exploration has undergone demythification. In fact, a new myth has been created in which Colombus et al, are imperialists who should not only be condemned for atrocities committed towards Native Americans but also for the imposing their cultural values on Native American society. The new politically correct image which idealizes Native American society is representative of contemporary liberal, post-colonial myths. The new myth's replacement of the old can be seen clearly in such mass culture productions as Disney's Pocahontas.

A second category of myth is myths about the early colonists of what was to become the United States of America. Early colonists are recognized for their flight from religious persecution to form a religiously tolerant society in the New World. O'Shaughnessy mentions John Winthrop's metaphor of America as the "shining city on a hill". What he does not mention is the effect that metaphor had centruries later in Ronald Reagan's 1964 campaign speech for Barry Goldwater. Although Goldwater was defeated in a landslide, many believe this speech is what launched Reagan as a national politician with presidential prospects. The metaphor, with its reliance on a popular perception, had not lost its potency over time.

A third myth in the American founding is the perception of the "founding fathers". These individuals are viewed reverently by Americans of all political persuasions. George Washington the "father of our country" transcends political labels. His power as an image of morality was the inspiration for the fable about little George and the cherry tree. Most recently, this myth was used in the 2006 campaign in a satirical attack ad on a member of Congress. The ad relies on the viewers' perception of Washington as honest and upright to contrast it to the conduct of the contemporary congressman.

Just Bad Journalism

From a reliable source of "divergent perspective", Le Monde: (I have selected the quotes that give the most flavor of this "perspective".)
Last evening in America promised to be an agreeable one. From the outset, one knew that the Democrats were going to have a breakthrough. But real bliss began at dawn, when the spirit of war subsided, with its procession of speculating Texas oilmen and maniacal fundamentalists...
It was all done with the admirable professionalism of American TV - not forgetting of course, the astonishing bad faith of Fox News and some others...
And without budging, they continued to relay statements from the brain-washing machine installed at the White House and Pentagon. But on this occasion they were obliged, the poor unfortunates, to reveal the names of the victorious Democrats and those of the Republicans who had fallen for their compulsive warmongering, and whose defeats were most often made possible because they had contented themselves with proclaiming their party's official line on Iraq. In not seeking a change on course - they failed to satisfy...

In order to clarify whether this classifies as propaganda it is necessary to establish a definition of propaganda and see whether this meets the qualifications of that definition. Propaganda must contain bias. This article certainly meets that qualification("they continued to relay statements from the brain-washing machine installed at the White House and Pentagon" etc.). However, bias alone does not propaganda make. Propaganda must contain an effort at persuasion. After all, the shared goal of all propaganda is to persuade. Here I think this article falls short. I do not think it attempts to change the reader's outlook by subtle means or otherwise. The author is presenting his opinions but is not demanding or subtlely suggesting that you should share his beliefs. Here, its obvious bias is also what make it a less likely candidate for propaganda. There is also no attempt made to present this story as the objective story it is not, in the expectation that the reader will accept it as purely factual. (I am assuming here that France does not have a very different standard for what counts as objective, something which I cannot prove.) It is hard to imagine that it is expected to change the reader's point of view.

A common theme in the MSM coverage of Bush's approval ratings is the negative effect Bush's low ratings will have for Republicans in Congress looking to be reelected. From the Hindustan Times ("Although Bush's job is not on the ballot, his public approval ratings below 40 per cent have undermined his ability to campaign.") to the Carlsbad Current-Argus ("Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, said there has never been an election in which a president's approval rating was below 40 percent 'and his party has not lost the 15 seats' that Democrats need to gain control this year. Bush's approval ratings hover in the mid- to high 30s.") and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ("President Bush's approval ratings continue to languish in Wisconsin as they have nationally, the latest statewide polls show. That's a potential drag on GOP candidates in close races in the state."), this has become a dominant MSM story. In this story, approval ratings are given significance beyond merely the public's approval of the president, but still only within the context of understanding public opinion.

On to the opinion of "journalist" Stephen Colbert: "Most of all, I believe in this president. Now, I know there are some polls out there saying that this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don’t pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in “reality.” And reality has a well-known liberal bias." Colbert is implying that the ratings cannot be biased because the approval rating is an assesment of objective reality. However, approval ratings do not claim to measure a president's actual performance. At most, the approval rating may be indicative of the public's perception of approval-worthy performance. Colbert is therefore suggesting that public perception of reality cannot be biased. This is demonstrably untrue, for the public often has biased perceptions. Colbert's conflation of polls with reality is actually a reflection of his own lack of understanding of reality.