a party underwater

As the Republican party finally sinks into that vast ocean of ill-will it has generated over the past 8 years, it’s worth remembering that the elections of 2008 were simply the latest battle in a broader political and cultural war with historical roots reaching back many decades.

While the modern Republican party is apparently looking for a way to escape the toxicity they so adroitly and perhaps permanently attached to their brand, voters would be wise to remember the precedents in Republican governance that led us to this point and be cautious of any re-invention that does not specifically address the historical positions of the party with regards to these particular events:

McCarthyism and the Red Scare, Watergate and Nixon’s use and understanding of executive power, the Vietnam-era anti-war movement, the civil rights movement and the Voting Rights Act of 1964, the Church Committee and intelligence operations conducted by the government upon its own people, the Iran Contra affair and Reagan’s use and understanding of executive power; and George W. Bush’s use and understanding of executive power and the so-called “Bush doctrine” in consideration of the “Downing Street Memos,” the pre-emptive war doctrine, international law and the Geneva conventions, extraordinary rendition, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless illegal spying, FISA and the granting of retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who knowingly violated the law.

headshot

There has been much debate within certain circles of society as to the precise effects of media upon their audiences. Do media create certain values and behaviors within their audiences or do they mirror existing values and behaviors according to audience demand? Are media simply reporting on the world at large, or in their selection, omission and portrayal are they helping to shape that world?

Hyper-sexualized and gratuitously violent television, music and video games abound, and are the most frequently discussed media elements due to their overtly controversial nature and accessibility to children. But outside seemingly isolated pockets of concerned parents, educators, and a small but growing group of media literati, there is precious little discussion about the potential effects of such media upon their audiences.

It seems unlikely that we will ever know the precise long-term effects of media upon our mental and emotional development, but lack of certainty in no way warrants the blatant lack of concern displayed by today’s media. It’s not as if there isn’t already a consensus that media can and do effectively alter the mindset of even grown adults. Consider the advertising or public relations industries, your company’s marketing department, or just take a moment and ponder the phrase “winning hearts and minds.”

In an age of carefully staged political events, propagandistic news reporting, and a near media blackout on our own military operations abroad, it seems worthwhile to consider again this one simple question: Do the media act primarily as a cause or as an effect in today’s society?

FISA, Obama, and the Nixon Precedent

Over the last several days there have been many heated discussions on the FISA bill that’s coming up shortly for a vote in the Senate. Most of the discussions have revolved around Senator Obama and his expressed support for the highly controversial bill, which includes a provision virtually guaranteeing legal immunity for telecommunications companies like AT&T, Verizon and Bell South who have helped the Bush administration illegally spy upon the American people in violation of their Fourth amendment rights. Many are looking to Obama as a Constitutional scholar, a consensus builder, and the de facto leader of his party to stand up for the rule of law and rally his party against this bill. Thus far, Senator Obama has expressed support for the FISA legislation and it appears that he will not hold to his pledge to filibuster any bill that includes immunity for the telecoms. The majority of “netroots” in my view are simply outraged that the man they’ve been supporting, volunteering for, and contributing to is not living up to their expectations. And it seems fair to say that those expectations are not the ideals of the “starry-eyed but sadly naive purist” but rather the very rule of law, the foundation of order within our country, and the contract between our people and our government that vests the government with rank and authority in exchange for the simple protection of our liberties as elaborated in our founding documents.

The response to this outrage within the online community has led some Obama supporters to proclaim that the FISA bill is simply not worth all the fuss. “Purist” liberals must stop obsessing on this and focus all their energies on the election, or else they’ll be be complicit in a McCain win. To these posters I think there is something worth considering:

How far will the Bush administration go to ensure a McCain win in November?

We have the elections of 2000 and 2004 as benchmarks, and lest we forget, we also have the election of 1972. To quote an earlier post on the topic:

Nixon’s White House relied on law enforcement and intelligence agencies, ex-F.B.I. and C.I.A. agents, and cadres of miscellaneous and unsavory personnel in their efforts to identify, root out, and embarrass “political enemies.” In the name of national security, they wiretapped those opposed to the war in Vietnam and those within its own administration suspected of leaking to the press. It also sought to surveil and sabotage the Democratic Party. Morton Halperin, once on the Nixon payroll was wiretapped while later working for Democrat Ed Muskie, then a contender for that party’s nomination to the presidency. “I was working on the Muskie campaign for president,” Halperin recalls in a 2005 interview for NPR “They picked up calls about that. They picked up many personal calls. My little kids were on the phone and they got those. My wife’s phone calls — everything was intercepted.” Nixon’s “Plumbers” unit broke into the office of whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in an effort to gather information that could be used against him in retribution for leaking the Pentagon Papers. The Committee to Re-elect the President attempted to wiretap the headquarters of eventual Democratic nominee and Nixon opponent Senator George McGovern, and were known to have wiretaps on journalists within The New York Times and CBS.

That one needs repeating: ***Nixon’s administration attempted to wiretap the Democratic nominee***

Of course, technology has come a long way since the 1970′s:

The specifics of how government surveillance programs operate has until very recently been a matter of pure speculation. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal has, however, shed some light on the massive scope and capability of these programs. Government intelligence agencies can begin with something as simple as a phone number or an Internet address and quickly track “all domestic and foreign transactions of people associated with that item — and then the people who associated with them, and so on, casting a gradually wider net.” They may also choose to begin more broadly, by directing “the government’s spy systems” “to collect and analyze all electronic communications into and out of” a given city. Information collected would include: “records of phone calls, email headers and destinations, data on financial transactions and records of Internet browsing” as well as “a cellphone’s location, whom a person is calling, and what Web sites he or she is visiting.” The system would collect information about other people, including those residing in the U.S., who communicated with the original target through the use of sophisticated social network tracing technology.

In the face of such an overwhelming intelligence gathering apparatus, one wonders what checks are left to protect the “persons, houses, papers, and effects” of average citizens, but also of opposition party candidates during an election period. The “Opponents List and Political Enemies Project” revealed by Nixon White House Counsel John Dean III during the Watergate Hearings reminds us the depths to which the Executive Branch can sink in its effort to retain the presidency. In a memorandum to Presidential Advisers H.R. Haldeman and John D. Ehrlichman, Dean wondered how they could “maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration; stated a bit more bluntly—how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.“

Now I think its worth asking ourselves a question: What reason do we have to think that the present administration is above such tactics? As we know, FISA was set up in the wake of Watergate era spying to put a check on government spy power.

And once immunity is granted and spy power expanded how do we expect to ever know just how these powers have been abused? Must we wait until McCain takes the election to consider the possibility that perhaps massive unchecked illegal surveillance power really was worth all the fuss?

Want to know more about FISA, AT&T, and the NSA? You can watch an excellent Frontline segment on FISA here. This is the third of 5 segments. If you ‘d like to watch the full (hour long) episode you can do so here, be sure to click “watch the full episode” on screen right.

[UPDATE] June 28, 2008: AT&T Whistleblower: Spy Bill Creates ‘Infrastructure for a Police State’, Obama social networking group forms to pressure the Senator to oppose FISA bill

[UPDATE II] June 28, 2008: Full text of the FISA bill (pdf)

govt + watchdog: bff

It’s been more than two weeks now since The New York Times revealed that corporate network news had played willing partners in a government propaganda campaign directed by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at the American people. Retired military brass were used as “message force multipliers,” briefed by Rumsfeld himself and expected to carry the administration’s pro-war ideology into network newsrooms where they were paid as expert analysts to repeat administration talking points as if they were their own opinions or objective facts. This conflict of interest was kept from the viewing public. Also kept from the public: Many generals turned analysts were concurrently being employed by companies who profit from war. It’s been more than two weeks since all this was made public, and not a word has been uttered by any of the big three networks.

According to a study done by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, in the 1,300 news stories that ran on 48 different outlets the week after the NYT story broke, only two mentioned the story — both on PBS’ “Newshour.”

After being harangued by citizens in the know about his nightly blackout on the issue, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams wrote–on his blog, 10 days after the NYT story ran– that he could vouch for two of the analysts employed by NBC, as they were both “passionate patriots” and close personal friends of his:

“I’ve worked with two men since I’ve had this job — both retired, heavily-decorated U.S. Army four-star Generals — Wayne Downing and Barry McCaffrey. As I’m sure is obvious to even a casual viewer, I quickly entered into a close friendship with both men.”

How’s that for staunch journalistic objectivity. The government propagandist and the watchdog together at long last… and best friends forever no less.

hearts and minds

Let’s face it, most of what’s been politely referred to as ”broadcast journalism” has for the past decade or so been an insult to our collective intelligence, an abandonment of democratic principle, and the overt public corruption of a civic ideal. For all its pattycaking with government spin-meisters in the selling of the Iraq war, its integrity as a government watchdog is highly suspect. For its collective refusal to correct the institutional shortcomings that have left our country in its present condition, it is indictable. And for its reaction to The New York Times’ revelation that it has been infiltrated and willfully co-opted by the military political establishment, networks should have their broadcast licenses revoked and their “broadcast journalists” sentenced to life without a hair stylist.

[UPDATE] April 24, 2008: PBS Newshour featured a debate between Robert Zelnick and John Stauber on the Pentagon’s “info war.” Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC and the Pentagon declined to show for the segment.

[UPDATE] April 28, 2008: “Pentagon halts feeding of information to retired officers while issue is reviewed.” Full story here.