The Media Ramblings

"I have never been much of a Party Man myself... and the more I learn of the realities of national politics, the more I'm convinced that the Democratic Party is an atavistic endeavor - more of an Obstacle than a Vehicle - and that there is really no hope of accomplishing anything genuinely new or different in American politics until the Democratic Party is done away with."

                                                                                                                      - Hunter S Thompson, 1972

                Well. At least the idea has been around for awhile I suppose. Certainly, the so-called leftism of the Democratic Party does more damage than good, diverting possible radicalism into a systemically safe endeavor. Party loyalties may be one of the most damaging things in American politics, or politics in general. Party loyalties are to be defended even when criticism arises. Even when the least offensive members of the GE/Comcast media speak a critical word, the basic goodness of the Democratic Party, and its various representatives lays largely untouched. To hold the opinion that both parties, not just the Republican or Democratic, are despicable organizations that lead only to destruction, is to sacrifice any career in a major media outlet.

                This criticism is somewhat acknowledged in society. FOX News is recognized as critical of the Democrats, while lovingly groveling at the feet of the Republican Party, while CNN and MSNBC do the opposite. This is hardly controversial, although some may claim that one or the other is "unbiased" simply because it supports their personal political ideals. But why don't their exist mainstream pundits that extend beyond this? Where are those that criticize both? They aren't around because they are systemically dangerous. If you criticize both, then, at least to some extent, questions the legitimacy of the current state of politics as a whole. If both parties are unfit to lead, then who?

                But why would an independent media want to support the government nearly unquestioningly? The answer, of course, is that the media is hardly independent. Sure, we may not have something as obviously state-driven as Pravda, but this does not indicate integrity. Instead of a directly state-run media we have a corporate run media. And the corporations that run them have as much a vested interest in the state as the state itself.

                But what is there to do? How do we fight monoliths that own the media? How do we get to truth? Well. Fortunately this is becoming easier and easier, and true radicalism is beginning to have a viable outlet through the internet, and being paid directly through readers. It leaves little room for censoring. The vanguard journalists shall still exist, because people that honestly believe as they do exist. But their monopoly may very well come to an end soon. And with the greater voice of radicalism, it may actually allow for change in the future.

The Sustaining State

                Whenever I speak or think of the state I try to think of it as a self-preserving organism, but in a way that does not necessitate knowing participation by the members of government, nor society. Instead, the values that sustain the state are instilled in a more natural way through a child's upbringing, especially by the school system. We are taught of the Noble Wars, of the great men that lead our country, of our governments love for freedom and progress. Of course, this view of history is highly flawed, incomplete and disingenuous.

                One of the more important functions of state-sustaining society is the co-option of radicalization. Integrating radicalism will serve an important function: it will allow for dissent within an acceptable context.  If dissent is controlled, and limited to an "acceptable" level, it can serve the state just as much as patriotism. For example, I consider 3rd Party Candidates to be part of this. 3rd Party Candidates provide an avenue for people that have been able to identify the farce on the ruling parties to focus their efforts toward one of several 3rd Parties. This helps channel dissent into, say money in politics or merely the 2 party monopoly while ignoring the system itself. This cannot be applied to every advocate of voting for a 3rd party, but seems common enough. People that believe merely voting for a libertarian or socialist candidate will automatically fix an entire system are ultimately sustaining the system by addressing grievances through the system itself. It is important that people feel as if they are in control to some degree. That they can change the nature of their government if need be. This prevents violent resistance, as people believe they can alter government through the ballot box. This gives many modern forms of government a greater level of sustainability than dictatorships and monarchies.

                An interesting effect of this self-sustaining system can be seen in the de-radicalization of previously radical music. Both punk rock and hip hop in particular were rather radical in their origins, speaking against war, poverty, class, power structures and various other topics. But as they became a source of profit, their message became less and less radical, and in some ways merely consumerist. This is the system sustaining itself through society itself, not needing direct control of the media as values are set at an early age through school and social propaganda.

                Our media is meant to be a watchdog of the state, but completely fails in this role. The media's values largely reflect the values of the government and it is rare that anyone breaks from the government rhetoric. Anyone that does manage to accurately criticize the government outside of acceptable, partisan lines is generally denigrated by the media itself. Ultimately, this more subtle propaganda machine is a better form of control than the Kings and fascists could come up with. The Russians knew that Pravda was filled with lies, but Americans generally limit their criticism to coinciding with their party alliance.

                Even Occupy Wall Street faced a major effort of co-option by the Democrats and MoveOn.  This had varying levels of success due to the make-up of the movement being rather politically diverse. It appealed to some, disgusted others.

                The self-sustaining functions of the state must be acknowledged and fought against by groups that wish to ultimately change the state. It is important to understand this and insure your dissent is not also merely sustaining the state by channeling the focus of your dissent.