The Great American Election Charade

[CrisisPapers]

| Ernest Partridge |

In the United States of America, the public selects the candidates of each of the two parties. Several candidates of these parties offer themselves to the citizens of a number of states, the free US press presents the policy positions of the candidates to the public, and the free broadcast media conduct debates in which the issues are openly discussed. Then the states hold primaries and caucuses, in which delegates are chosen by the voters, whereupon the delegates choose the parties' nominees at open national party conventions.

And little George Washington really did chop down his daddy's cherry tree.

The more the American public is persuaded to believe this pleasant myth of the "free and open election process," the longer that public will believe that each new Chief Executive is the legitimate "people's choice." And that persisting public belief suits the powers that be in the military-industrial-corporate-media complex (MICMC) just fine.

In fact, the United States is one of the few two-party nations in which one party gets to choose both its own candidate, and also the candidate of the "opposing" party.

Well, OK, I exaggerate. But it's not much of a stretch to say that the GOP, with the help of its wholly-owned subsidiary, the mainstream media, has routinely exercised veto power over the Democratic Party's potentially strong opponents: Ed Muskie and the "Canuck letter" in 1972, Howard Dean and the infamous "scream" in 2004, and apparently, once again, John Edwards and his "anger" and $400 haircuts.

(As numerous polls have disclosed, John Edwards is potentially the strongest Democratic candidate against the Republicans, and Hillary Clinton is the weakest. Yet Edwards, who finished second in the Iowa caucuses, has vanished from the pages of the mainstream media, from the columns of the punditocracy, and even from the press conferences of The Democratic Leadership Council – the Republican wing of the Democratic party).

Following the conventions, the mainstream media rolls out the heavy artillery, and lays down its quadrennial barrage on the Democrats: Dukakis and Willie Horton, Clinton and "Whitewater," Gore's "invention" of the internet and "discovery" of Love Canal, Kerry and the "Swift Boat Veterans." Meanwhile, the GOP candidates are pelted with marshmallows: "compassionate conservatism," "uniter, not a divider," while the candidate's shady past is kept in a secure lock box: the National Guard AWOL, Harken and Arbusto and insider trading, DUIs and drug busts.

I am not suggesting that the voters have no significant role to play in the US elections, just that for the past fifty years or so, this role is much smaller than most American citizens dare believe. Even so, the citizens' voice in the selection of its leader is potentially formidable, and even decisive, and this mere possibility has the poobahs of the establishment MICMC terrified.

The founders called decisive citizen involvement in public decision-making, governing "with the consent of the governed." Lincoln called it "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Tom Donahue, the President of the US Chamber of Commerce calls it "populism," and has resolved that the CoC will spend as much cash as it may take to stamp it out.

That effort just might bankrupt the super-affluent Chamber of Commerce, for the fact of the matter is the American public is now as mad as hell and not going to take it any more. More significant, perhaps, than the candidates' totals in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary are the numbers of citizens participating in these contests: approximately twice as many Democrats as Republicans, and an extraordinarily large proportion of them are young people.

At long last, more and more ordinary Americans are getting the message that they have been lied to, that they can no longer trust the mainstream media, that their public treasury has been looted, that their children's and grandchildren's future has been mortgaged, and that they are living under the darkening shadow of despotism.

Still the establishment MICMC rolls on in its arguably pre-determined course, "populism" and the public be damned. Matt Taibbi on Bill Maher's "Real Time" last Friday summed it up perfectly:

The (campaign) theme for awhile was that the voters were sick and tired of being told by the media who was going to be their nominee. But it seems to have come full circle now, and it looks like we may end up getting the same people we were going to get in the first place: (McCain and Clinton)....

Seventy percent of the country wants to withdraw from Iraq, and we get two pro-war candidates. If that doesn't tell you how f****d-up the system is, I don't know what does.

So we are now at a crossroads. Here, for what it's worth, are two scenarios: To the right, we get McCain vs. Clinton and more of the same, whoever wins. If these are the candidates, Hillary will get a media pounding that will make the Swift Boats seem like a luxury cruise. The GOP will nominate McCain and a "smart Bush" – maybe Giuliani or even (God forbid!) Cheney – for Veep. The GOP/MSM noise machine will bring the McCain poll numbers upward toward 45%, which is close enough for Diebold, et. al, to do the rest. McCain, age 72, will win and after a year or two, retire "for health reasons." Bush's "enabling acts" will still be in place, and ... – the rest is too horrible to contemplate.

To the left, the public demand for change becomes irresistible. Edwards is nominated, or perhaps Obama with a populist enthusiasm not clearly evident today. A populist/Democratic tsunami overwhelms the black-box voting machines, a Democrat moves into the White House, and the Democrats take substantial control of Congress. By then, the Bush depression may be upon us, opening the door to substantial social, economic and political reform.

The latter scenario can not happen without a massive outpouring of public anger and demand for substantial change. If that anger is contained, we remain on a rightward course. If it breaks loose and the Bastille falls, all bets are off. It's in the hands of we the people.

Hold on tight: it's going to be a rough ride ahead!

-- EP

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. 61% want single payer health care

and yet DUers here mock Kucinich, even though his issues resonate with the voters--if all you look at are the issues. I'm a Kucinich supporter, but I'm sure you'd find the same thing with Edwards on many issues.

[raccoon]

2. K&R. Thanks for posting this. nt

[Yael]

3. Powerful.

thanks for posting this.

[KoKo]

4. K&R

[katty]

5. charade-indeed it is!

[puebloknot]

6. Liberte! Egalite! Fraternite! An idea whose time has come...

...around again. What is the URL for the web site with instructions for We the People to find the barricades? Hopefully there will be a graphic to show exactly what a barricade is!

Hope springs, but is a little anemic this year.

Great article!

[nealmhughes]

14. Here are some good ones from the Communards in 1871 and in Spain in 39.

[puebloknot]

16. Yes! Now if someone can just Photoshop some McDonalds and...

...Walmarts into these, the American citizenry will surely arise in their anger and take back our country!
Vive L'Amerique (from years-old high school French; hope it's correct)! :)

[crud76]

7. "Media" Is Plural Form Of "Medium"

To say, "Following the conventions, the mainstream media rolls out the heavy artillery..." is incorrect since you're referring to more than one medium, be it TV, radio, etc. The correct way to say this is "...the mainstream media roll out..."

[troubleinwinter]

9. "...it is not the plural of medium."

"When referring to the media, as in the mass media, i.e., the mass-communication industry comprising journalism and entertainment, media is usually held to be a singular noun (because it is not the plural of medium. It is a term derived from the concept of an industry communicating through different media, e.g., newspapers, television, films, magazines). In all other cases, it is the plural of medium, whether one is referring to artistic media, storage media (e.g., blank media, such as CDs), media players, etc."

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/media

[crud76]

11. Medium

Radio is a medium.

Television is a medium.

Print is a medium.

All of the above are media.


When making a general statement about all of them, the correct usage is "The media are," not "is."

[troubleinwinter]

15. #1) You are wrong.

"Media is" is a correct usage.

"Media, like data, is the plural form of a word borrowed directly from Latin. The singular, medium, early developed the meaning “an intervening agency, means, or instrument” and was first applied to newspapers two centuries ago. In the 1920s media began to appear as a singular collective noun, sometimes with the plural medias. This singular use is now common in the fields of mass communication and advertising, but it is not frequently found outside them: The media is (or are) not antibusiness." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/media

#2) Your post to the OP was rude and unnecessary. This is not grammar class.

[crud76]

19. Twenty Seven Years Of ReaganBush

have really dumbed down this country.

We need to present ourselves as knowing what we're talking about, rather than a bunch of argumentative illiterates like the right wing.

No offense to the OP.

[troubleinwinter]

20. Seems that the country has been dumb since the 1920s, according to your standards.

"In the 1920s media began to appear as a singular collective noun"

[crud76]

21. "In the 1920s media began to appear as a singular collective noun"

AND IT WAS INCORRECT THEN, TOO!

Popular misuse of a term DOES NOT make it correct.

[troubleinwinter]

24. The language is a living thing. You DO believe in evolution, don't you?

Some things I found:

"People also use media with the definite article as a collective term to refer not to the forms of communication themselves so much as the communities and institutions behind them. In this sense, the media means something like “the press.” Like other collective nouns, it may take a singular or plural verb depending on the intended meaning."

"Quite frequently, however, media stands as a singular noun for the aggregate of journalists and broadcasters: The media has not shown much interest in covering the trial. This development of a singular media parallels that of more established words such as data and agenda, which are also Latin plurals that have acquired a singular meaning."

"However, "media" is today very often used as a singular noun to refer to all the agencies of mass communication as an entity. This usage is so widespread that it can no longer be considered incorrect."

"Media can take either singular or plural and both are completely acceptable."

[crud76]

26. "Media and data

are nearly always treated as singular in English. To treat them as plural is precious and rather like waving a little flag inscribed, 'Hey! I studied Latin.' I'd suggest that when writing you give priority to expressing yourself clearly and not to sending irrelvant and distracting messages about yourself."

Right, let others cow you into mediocrity.

[troubleinwinter]

27. Damn!

I was hoping you'd actually come back with some actual content, rather than your own personal pronouncements pulled out of your ass. I had hoped that you would, so that I could welcome you to DU.

I take it that you don't accept the concept of evolution of language?

Let's call up some mediums and get a few readings, shall we?

[Ernest Partridge]

29. May I jump in, or is this a private fist-fight?

Well, since I started it, I guess I'm entitled to join.

"Troubleinwinter" has it nailed: language evolves. And his supporting evidence is impressive.

Modern (descriptive) linguistics: "Correct English is what most English speakers speak."

Old-fashioned (prescriptive) linguistics: "Correct English is what English professors speak."

Don't take my word for it, Dr. Elinore Partridge, Professor Emerita of English and Linguistics, told me so. And in this house, she gets the final word about things linguistic.

Crud76 writes that "popular misuse of a term does not make it correct." Well, yes and no. If a few people use a term contrary to ordinary usage, then they are "incorrect." But if more and more adopt that usage, it becomes more and more "correct," even though determined resistance to the change might remain among some professions. (Thus English, strictly speaking, is a collection of dialects; professional and vocational as well as regional). When a usage grows (evolves) from a few non-conformists to universal use, it becomes "correct."

Example: "disinterested." A generation ago, this meant "unbiased," as in "a disinterested judge." Now, to my great regret, it has become synonymous with "uninterested." So I have given up using the word "disinterested," and use "unbiased" instead.

Another example: Scholarly types recognize a crucial distinction between "imply" (an objective, logical, function) and "infer" (a subjective, psychological function). E.g. "The prosecution presented evidence which strongly implied the guilt of the defendant. The jury inferred that he was, and returned a verdict of guilty." In casual discourse, "infer" and "imply" tend toward synonymy.

As for the singular/plural status of "media," "Troubleinwinter" has given us a wealth of examples of plural words that have "evolved" into singularity. "Data" is the word that comes immediately to my mind. Also, I would never say that "Tosca" is my favorite Puccini Opus -- it is an Opera. Until I read this page, I had never encountered the word "insigne."

"Media" as singular and "media" as plural have distinct connotations aside from mere number. Singular "media," as in "mainstream media," suggests unity and perhaps collaboration, whereas plural "media" suggests diversity. It is clearly the former, not the latter, that I wish to convey with "mainstream media."

Oh, and I almost missed this from "Troubleinwinter:" the plural of "medium" (as a "channeler" with the dead) is "mediums," not "media." Terrific!

The English language is not a perfect entity, which must be perpetually protect from desecration by the "ignernt masses." It was not given to us, intact, by God Almighty. It is not a perfect Platonic Form. It is the collective "property" of those who speak it. English is as English does -- as it is spoken, written and read.

So too with every natural language.

[troubleinwinter]

32. It may seem a diversion

to have this "fist-fight" within your thread. But the good news is that each entry 'bumps' the thread so that more eyes see your very excellent article.

I guess it has been a worthy discussion. At least I learned something... I had not known about opus/opera. And I'm an opera fan!

Post #31 tells of a recent personal experience relating to the evolution of the American language.

Thank you for your article.

[CRH]

30. The author in the original post, ...

has for years provided a comprehensive analysis of politics, that has been enlightening to many readers. His writing is effective because the thoughts he conveys are written in a relaxed common english many people use in ordinary speech of everyday conversations. His style never confronts the ease of understanding.

To be a grammar nazi often comes with a risk of being for many, less readable. It also can vary depending on which school or country a person learned the mechanics of the english language. Do you place the comma before or after the but, and must one always separate sentence phrases with commas so every third word is punctuated? Have you ever found a run on compound sentence more effective and natural for communication, than short sentences of chopped up thoughts?

Words and their individual spellings or connotations can be equally resistant to severe rules of use. What of colloquial words or speech of different regional locations, perhaps stretching across classes or customs? With a grammar nazi near, would we realize the fun of a malaprop, or would it be de'ja' vu all over again feeling our expression confined by our primary school grammar teacher, in all her prissy persistence?

The very important part of writing is being easily understood, conveying thoughts clearly. I think the author does very well, day in and day out, even with out the perfection of an anal retentive.

[troubleinwinter]

31. Commas!#$**&!#

A year ago, I typed a long article into the computer for a retired University Professor of Western American History friend. It was about a man in the 1860s-1880s, and was an article for publication.

As I typed, I became very uncomfortable. I called him and said, "Many of the sentences are too long, should have a few unnecessary words dropped, be broken into two sentences, and there are WAY TOO MANY COMMAS everywhere." (I even emailed it to and English Literature teacher friend and she agreed.) The sentences were convoluted and sometimes challenging to follow. The history professor said, "Do not touch one single period or comma. It is exactly correct as it is." I thought he'd gone entirely eccentric in his later years.

Later, he explained to me that it had deliberately been written in the style of the period. Since then, as I read many western American history books written at the time, I notice the style. To a modern eye/ear, they seem needlessly long, flowery and complicated.

I sometimes tend to use too many commas, but I never saw so many in my life!

Language is a living thing.

[DutchLiberal]

22. 'Media' IS the plural of 'medium'.

[troubleinwinter]

25. Reasearch word usage. See post #24. Opera, data, insignia, media, agenda, etc. Language evolves.

The usage in OP was not incorrect.

[DutchLiberal]

34. Still, 'media' IS plural. Check a dictionary. It comes from the Latin 'medium'.

[troubleinwinter]

35. I recommend posts #24 and #29

I hope your data isn't lost!
I like that insignia on your jacket.
How was the opera?
Is the agenda set for the meeting?
The media sucks.

[DutchLiberal]

38. The fact that you are using it like that in English, doesn't mean it originally is plural.

(By the way, e.g. in Dutch it's always used as plural.)

But really, why are we having this argument? It's not that important, right? :shrug:

[troubleinwinter]

39. We are discussing English usage, not Dutch usage.

The article was written in English.

Certainly, 'media' was originally plural, and is still used as a plural in most cases. However, usage in relation to "mass media" and "mainstream media" can be used as singular. We now use many words that were originally plural, as singular, such as: "The insignia is placed on the left. The opera was sold out. The data on my computer was lost. The agenda was revised." Those are all plural words now used as singular. Language evolves.

"Why are we having this argument?" Because 'Crud' found the subject interesting enough to bring it up. If you find it to be "not that important", you needn't post on subjects that don't interest you, and are free to find other threads that do interest you.

You can properly say, "The media suck."

And I can properly say, "The media sucks."

[crud76]

36. It's useless

Next they'll try to argue that you should have said, "Media are plural!"

[paparush]

8. Kick & Rec!

[whirlygigspin]

17. kick

n/t

[loudsue]

10. Partridge really doesn't get it that Obama is DLC. Lieberman is his mentor.

Obama is NOT a liberal, and thinks voting machine fraud is "conspiracy theory". Obama will change little or nothing. The corporations OWN him.

[DutchLiberal]

23. Neither is Edwards.

[CRH]

33. Can't speak to what Partridge does or does not get, ...

because though he does speak that Obama might somehow find some populist themes in his actions, he does seem less than an advocate.

Your other comments resonate with my thoughts, and I wish I saw more posts on this board that drew this distinction. Obama denies being DLC, but it is sure hard to tell by his close alignment with former Clinton advisers and the PPI philosophies on foreign policy. Also, left or liberal he is not, and as you have pointed out, by all appearances he has very strong ties through policy positions to corporations.

More troubling to me, is in his speeches and responses to media questions, he shamelessly panders to the right when he talks of modeling his proposed method of governing as using coalitions 'like President H. W. Bush did for the 1990 Gulf War', and so on. Some of his comments have seemed right of the DLC. And, you can forget any reform of government, review of 911, or changes in pursuit of the war on terrorism as a driving force of foreign policy politics.

It is hard to remember a politician that has been a real contender to a status quo politician like Hillary, that on emotional response of personality alone has been able to draw close or even surpass name recognition and 'supposed' experience. Obama has a movie star presence and appearance, but I have seen little else with any substance. Rhetoric, buzz words, and sweeping generalizations of the ills of the society and politics, are all I have heard.
It is hard to remember an emptier sack, that weighed so heavy with public opinion, since Reagan. It scares me, that he could drag the politics even farther right, than Hillary might be inclined.

[colsohlibgal]

12. The Masses

Yes, the MSM has done their best to narrow the democratic race to just Hillary and Obama.

That only works though because so many people, including plenty of democrats, let them do it. They don't seek out any info on the candidates beyond what they hear on MSM even though for large numbers of these people it would be much better for them personally if Edwards won.

What's fascinating is listening to reasons why people vote for whoever - many of the reasons have nothing to do with anything substantive. But I guess that makes sense - what could be more important than how much someone spent for a haircut in deciding to vote for him/her? Sheesh!

[Paranoid Pessimist]

13. In the immortal words of Timbuk 3:

Presidential elections are planned distractions
To divert attention from the action behind the scenes
like a game of chess when the house is a mess
Or a petty money squabble when your marriage is in trouble
Or a football game when there's rioting in the streets

It's just another movie, another song and dance
Another poor sucker who never had a chance
It's just another captain going down with his ship
Just another jerk, taking pride in his work

I was a poor magician; I could never understand
You can't make tears disappear through sleight of hand
From the bottom of my heart -- off the top of my head
Words were pulled like rabbits from a hat but nothing was said

Now my freedom's bought and paid for -- it lights up my living room
I got nothing more to prove; I've got no reason to move
And when I'm tired of the program -- when it's taken it's toll
I can press a button, change the channel by remote control

[The Wizard]

18. Why would the Corporate media

support a guy like Edwards who says it's time for the media to stop picking who will be our political leaders? The media makes its most money by selling advertising time to the candidates with the most money. And when they say it's not about the money, it's the money. The movie "Network" is more important now than ever. "I'm mad as hell..............."
Tim Russert sucks dicks and barks at the moon. That just sounded too poetic to pass up.

[mojowork_n]

28. Thank you.

Great reading, I'm only sorry I came to this post too late to recommend, and sorrier still that there wasn't much discussion or commentary. (As entertaining as it was, I'm not counting the Mother of All Grammarian Battles.)

Bookmarked your Journal.

[flashl]

37. K&R n/t

[Doctor_J]

40. This is spot on, of course, and summarizes why I think

it's going to get bloody here before it's over. And I say this as an optimist, not a pessimist. The only alternative to US taking back our country is for it to end up like Nazi Germany or Milosevic's Serbia. The wingers behind the scenes, and their propaganda arm, laugh at our petitions, little law suits, blogs, and handful of honest Congress people and media representatives. Anyone who really takes on the fascists ends up unemployed like Rather, if lucky, or if not, with an Anthrax envelope. Petitions don't do much against that kind of fire power.

I hope the revolution comes before the bottom falls out, and while I'm still spry enough to help out.