“The corporate grip on opinion
in the United States is one of the wonders of the
Western world. No First World country has ever
managed to eliminate so entirely from its media
all objectivity - much less dissent” - Gore
Vidal
In an excellent analysis of the problems of the
American media in the New York Review of Books
for December 15 Michael Manning described the tone
of the media coverage of Bush at the beginning
of this year.
"President Bush, fresh from his reelection,
was enjoying broad public support, and he was making
the most of Iraq's January 30 election, which was
widely proclaimed a success. The anti-Syria demonstrations
in Lebanon and the election of Mahmoud Abbas as
the president of the Palestinian Authority only
added to the impression of the growing success
of Bush's foreign policy. Journalists rushed to
praise his leadership and sagacity. 'What Bush
Got Right,' Newsweek declared on its March
14 cover. Recent developments in Iraq, Lebanon,
and elsewhere in the Middle East had 'vindicated'
the President, the magazine declared. 'Across New
York, Los Angeles and Chicago—and probably
Europe and Asia as well—people are nervously
asking themselves a question: 'Could he possibly
have been right? The short answer is yes.' Another
article, headlined 'Condi's Clout Offensive,' hailed
the new secretary of state, noting how she 'has
rushed onto the world stage with force and style,
and with the fair wind of the Arab Democratic Spring
at her back.'
Every newspaper and television outlet, it seemed,
was busily running The Map, a picture of the US
covered by a huge blotch of red (pro-Bush) radiating
out from the centre, with only a few little enclaves
of anti-Bush blue scattered around the East and
West Coasts and a couple of pockets around
the Northern borders.
This is pathetic, servile bootlicking. 'Fresh
from his election', for example, elides the
increasing evidence, subscribed to by millions
including myself, that Bush was never elected president
in two shots at the post and that it is an illegitimate
administration. To contend that Bush was 'possibly'
right on the Iraqi invasion and occupation -- 'the
short answer is yes’(!) -- was grotesque
then and delusional now. So far as Ms. Rice's Democratic
Spring wind blowing her forward, she was just recently
touring Europe explaining how the torture she claims
her government doesn't do is nevertheless the torture
protecting the US's allies from terrorism and the
like.
And that intimidating Map? Its assumptions have
dissolved into air. In late November a consort
of media organizations funded a poll by Survey
USA to do a state-by-state approval rating for
Bush: it turns out there are three states which
continue to show a moderate level of approval
(e.g., 50-59%) for Bush: they are Utah, Idaho and
Wyoming. That's all. Every other state falls into
the disapproval category. Ratings this low shortly
after reelection are beyond unique.
Bush's approval numbers read like a carnival roller
coaster in the timeline of popularity polls over
the past five years. Never much more than 50%
early in his first term, there was a huge spike
in the weeks after the September 11 attacks, some
figures reaching to near 90% support. From there
the numbers drift down, with a large spike again
at the onset of the invasion of Iraq, another at
the capture of Saddam Hussein and finally (to 50%)
at the time of the US elections in 2004. But the
trend always was down, showing Bush is not at all
a popular or well liked president. Polling in the
35 percentile, as has been the case for Bush off
and on since October, is unsustainably low, but
short of extraordinary events his approval rating
will probably not go much above 40%.
Behind the decline in Bush’s popularity
and influence in this country is the War and the
occupation of Iraq. Increasing public disapproval
of Bush began with Cindy Sheehan’s decision
to confront Bush on his vacation in Texas
in August. Incensed by Bush's statement that
U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq died in a 'noble cause',
Ms. Sheehan, the mother of a young man who died
in the occupation, decided to go to Crawford, Texas,
and ask Bush to explain to her what 'noble cause'
it was for which her son was killed.
Every decision which might possibly lead to a
difficult personal challenge in Bush’s world
is handled by surrogates. His refusal to speak
with Ms Sheehan can be explained as cowardly, or
callousness, or because the reason for the war
was US control of the Iraqi oil reserves (hardly
the noble cause of the inane speeches), but for
whatever reason he chose to hide out at his mansion
and ride his bicycle rather than risk any confrontation
with her. Ms Sheehan refused to deal with the proffered
surrogates; she was then rapidly joined by many
other supporters.
So the Republican noise machine revved up to slander
and vilify Ms Sheehan as happens every time
anyone appears insufficiently obsequious to
Mr. Bush. The unintended consequence of this
smear-fest was the creation of an organizing centre
for the rebirth of the stalled peace movement.
And a part of the press sat up and took notice.
Then Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans
and much of the Gulf Coast. Unaccountably, Bush
stayed far out of contact on his Texas vacation
and, in a continuous demonstration of stunning
incomprehension, ignored the whole situation for
five or six days, finally returning only to try
to deflect criticism from FEMA and blame someone
-- the governor, the mayor, whoever -- other than
his own cronies and appointees. This issue was
well reviewed by Pete Smith in his article 'Desolation
Row' in the last Chartist. It only needs to be
noted here that despite everything most people
in the United States still believe it is the primary
responsibility of government to protect its people,
and that the spectacle of dead bodies floating
in the main streets of what had been a major American
city was enough to awaken even the most bemused
of the media and the electorate.
This fiasco, and its demonstration of the Bush
governmental apparatus’s indifference to
poor and Black people (two-thirds of New Orleans
was Black) and staggering incompetence in the basic
tasks of government finally punctured a hole in
the media’s operational portrayal of Bush
as an enormously popular war president and began
to portray him as very much the opposite.
A process less dramatic than the Cindy Sheehan
movement or the devastation of New Orleans but
more likely to have a regime-ending impact is the
Patrick Fitzgerald investigation of White House
involvement in the byzantine, convoluted 'CIA Leak'
case. Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson traveled
to Niger to investigate rumours Iraq was attempting
to buy uranium for atomic weapons, and found the
source of the stories was a crude forgery. After
Bush repeated the accusation in his State of the
Union address whipping up war hysteria, Wilson
wrote an opinion piece saying it was all a fraud.
A few days later a right-wing columnist published
an attack on Wilson, saying among other things
he had it on the authority of administration sources
that Wilson's wife was CIA. Outing CIA agents is
felonious, but the White House stonewalled, the
CIA complained, and the Justice Department appointed
a special prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald. (Fitzgerald
was also the prosecutor in the Conrad Black indictment.)
Over the past two years, in events eerily similar
to the Watergate investigations of thirty years
ago that brought down Nixon, Fitzgerald has indicted
Scooter Libby of the Vice-President's office, and
appears on the brink of indicting Karl Rove, Bush's
top aide. Further, he has exposed the White House
Iraq Group, an ad hoc group which 'marketed' the
war to the public and the media and has publicized
various celebrity journalists who carry water and
do semi-propaganda for the regime. The upshot has
been, as the New York Times’ Frank Rich has
written, 'Largely because of the revelations
prompted by the marathon Fitzgerald investigation,
a majority of Americans now believe that the Bush
administration deliberately misled the country
into war.'
Quite evidently by now the Bush regime is seen
by a majority of the electorate and the media alike
as a lame duck heading up a failed presidency.
But short of some exceptional circumstances there
are three more years until Bush is out of power.
If Republicans were to maintain their control of
both houses of Congress after the elections next
year the situation will become even more toxic
and polarized than now. If the Democrats take either
or both houses after these elections they will
have control of all committees and subpoena power
to compel testimony, run investigations, and the
like. Despite the very poor level of Democratic
Party leadership it’s a virtual certainly
that a Democratic majority in either house would
mean an attempt to impeach Bush. For the time being
that would be a necessary, if not sufficient, beginning. |
This
month
Archive
of past articles