I ran across the following video from New Left Media at The Nationhere, where it said:
It Isn't Easy Being Pro-Palin
The recent media blizzard surrounding Sarah Palin's book tour has presented intrepid reporters with the opportunity to give her supporters a voice--and the results have been priceless.... The facts might not be straight, but this video proves that for some, that misinformation is actually a reality.
Okay, so there's stuff to laugh at here. (Q: "What are your problems with Tzars?"] A: "I'm an American. We don't have Tzars in America.") But also stuff to think about:
A few things to think about:
(1) There's a lot of mimicking of narrative talking points, with very little connection to issues. ("She's someone who could make a difference." Q: "What sort of a difference would you like her to make?" A: "I don't know. I guess I never really thought about it." )
But, how different are Obama supporters, given the growing number and degree of disconnects between his campaign promises (vague as his main themes were) and what he's delivering? [Note: I'm not saying they're the same. I'm asking a serious question here. There are differences, but how much difference do those differences make?]
(2) How similar is this to how people relate to media figures in general--from newscasters to actors that people routinely confuse with the characters they play? ("She makes me proud to be a woman & she's strong." Or: "She stands for what America is." [Promted to explain:] "Freedom. Liberty. The right to speak.")
(3) How far removed from reality is all political discourse in America today, as opposed to being grounded in one or another form of suppositional reality?
(4) What can be done to make reality matter more in our politics?
The not-to-subtle subtext here: After the many horrors of the Gingrich-Bush/Cheney era, I was not one of those who thought Barack Obama was the second coming of FDR, but I was expecting some degree of return to reality-based policy-making & politics. Now I'm thinking, not so much.
While the report focuses attention on the current sorry state of the airline industry, and its underlying structural problems that lie behind the recent rash of airline crashes and near-misses such as the crash of the Continental/Colgan flight to Buffalo, it traces current conditions back to the decision, 30 years ago, to deregulate the airline industry.
How's this for an astonishing fact: Since 2000, U.S. airlines have reported net losses of more than $33 billion--almost twice their accumulated profits from 1938 to 1999!
Of course, the trump card for the deregulators is the claim of low fares, and broad affordability, but the executive summary notes:
[Economist Alfred] Kahn [the "father of airline deregulation"] and others have taken refuge in the argument that deregulation has produced lower airfares and wider access to air travel. The Demos report concludes that even this benefit is widely overstated. "While the price of flying has come down over the past thirty years," the report notes, "it decreased at a comparable rate from the 1940s through the 1960s. In any event, low airfares are as much a problem as an achievement if they leave an industry without the resources to maintain service standards and make crucial investments in equipment, technology, and human capital."
If anything this understates the case. If deregulation has resulted in net industry losses, those fare reductions were paid for by the airlines creditors! What kind of a business model is that? Considering the amount of technological innovation, and the increased traffic volume, it seems altogether possible that fares would have fallen more without deregulation! Heck, the food might even have been edible!
This is only one industry, but the story's the same everywhere you look: the deregulation mania has been a disaster for America. Sure, stupid regulations can be a pain in the ass. But that's about stupidity, not regulation per se.
This is an excellent report, but we need to build on this and other detailed reporting on specific failures of de-regulation to develop a new narrative stressing the positive value of smart, far-sighted regulation in crafting systems that work for everyone. If freedom means anything, it's not just freedom from arbitrary restraints, it's freedom to do things of one's own choosing, and the capacity to do things depends in part on soundly-functioning systems, from cars that won't blow up to government that won't get you killed for reasons they lie to you about. That's why smart regulations expand our freedom, rather than restricting it.
A few juicy tidbits from the report on the flip--along with some broader thoughts on history, transportation and freedom.
As Glenn Greenwald points out , there's been a dramatic sea-change in the rules of effective political rhetoric. Glenn cites three examples over the course of one week's time--GOP Rep. Robin Hayes, VP nominee Sarah Palin, and GOP Rep. Michelle Bachmann--all attacking Democrats' patriotism, then denying it, turning tail and running away.
There's clearly something interesting -- and different -- happening here. It's not that right-wing politicians are accusing liberals and Democrats of being unpatriotic, anti-American subversives. There's nothing new about that. To the contrary, that McCarthyite accusation has virtually been a central plank -- one could say the defining plank -- in the GOP platform for the last three decades, at least.
What's different -- markedly so -- is that once they do it, they feel compelled to backtrack, deny they said it or meant it, rescind it, and -- in the case of Palin -- actually "apologize" for it.
There's no doubt about it, as Glenn's book, Great American Hypocrites documents, demonizing liberals while buildging up phony conservative heros has been central to the GOP's political strategy for decades now, and the fact that it's falling apart so dramatically is big news indeed. How big? Well, Glenn goes on to quote Zogby saying,
If Obama wins like this we can be talking not only victory but realignment.
