People in the anti-war movement have gotten used to being called terrorist sympathizers, if not outright traitors by our good friends in the Right Wing Wurlitzer. Well, now even Republican presidential candidates are having that baseless charge flung at them, as Ron Paul discovered Wednesday during the Republican debate:
Paul said the Iraq was was making the US “less safe, and he called for a “new foreign policy that says we should mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend our security,” prompting Wallace’s question.
“So, Congressman Paul … you’re basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda?” Fox host Chris Wallace asked. “If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave?”
Welcome to the club, Congressman. It seems you can’t utter any discouraging words regarding President Bush’s Big Adventure in Iraq without being charged with treason by some right wing mouthpiece these days. And it’s been a somewhat successful tactic, as once prominent members of the antiwar movement, such as Cindy Sheehan, are now shunned by the Democrats in Congress. Not so long ago I remember Congressional representatives speaking at large protest rallies in Washington, DC were proud to stand by Cindy Sheehan’s side. Now they (and to their discredit many so-called progressives in the netroots) have disowned her.
This is the power that comes from controlling the media agenda, a power which the right still wields, even at a time when a majority of Americans want our troops out of Iraq, Democrats have regained control of Congress and President Bush is mired in the worst approval ratings of his tenure in office. When you control the mouthpiece, you control the conversation. You can label your political adversaries as traitors, as people who “take their marching orders from al Qaeda” and there will be no outcry against the use of such lies and slanders because too many will refuse to speak out against you. They will be intimidated by your power, because they know there is no voice, and no respect, given to those who deviate from the dominant media narrative. It’s why Rudy Giuliani can dress up in drag and flirt with Donald Trump but not have his “manliness” questioned, while John Edwards will be called a “faggot” and a “Breck Girl” when he gets a haircut or combs his hair.
It’s also why a deeply conservative libertarian Republican such as Congressman Paul (not a politician I admire, by the way, despite his opposition to the war) will be lumped in with rest of us traitorous scum on the left. And no one in the mainstream media will bat an eye, or lift a finger to question whether such behavior by a television “journalist” is appropriate for a debate among Presidential candidates, regardless of party affiliation. This is just how debased our discourse has become in the age of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and all the other mainstream media mavens of right wing hatred, demagoguery and propaganda.
And until progressive voices are accorded equal status and equal representation on television that is how it will remain. Because television is still the overwhelming news source of choice for most Americans. Progressives and liberals can dominate the internet all we like, but until there is one Keith Olbermann on TV for every Bill O’Reilly, one Phil Donahue for every Glenn Beck or Tucker Carleson, we will remain on the defensive, and the politicians we support will continue to desert our agenda when the going gets tough. Because they are afraid of what right wing media might do to them. To their political careers. To their reputations. To their families.
And that my friends is how terrorists operate.
