A train wreck:
We’re in a different political environment now in two important respects. The first is the media. There was no Internet or blogosphere in 1995; Fox News Channel did not start until October 1996; talk radio was in its infancy, with Rush Limbaugh already an important national voice but with few other conservative hosts on the air.
In that environment, liberal-inclined media were able to tell the story and frame the issue the way they liked without much dissent. ABC’s Peter Jennings could compare voters who supported Gingrich Republicans to infants having a tantrum. Such voices don’t have a monopoly today.
The second significant difference is that in the mid-1990s the economy was growing and it was not clear why we needed to limit government spending. We could afford more for this, that and the other thing.
Now we’re in straitened circumstances, just out of a severe recession (though many voters don’t think it’s over just yet) and in a very restrained and anemic recovery. We’ve seen that a substantial increase in government spending — from 21 percent to 25 percent of gross domestic product — hasn’t done much to stimulate economic growth. And we’ve seen that government kept growing even as the private sector suffered.
As I’ve said in the past, I don’t think that Bill Clinton would have won in 1992 with today’s media.
“Such voices don’t have a monopoly today.”
Rand,
they may not have a monopoly, but they damned sure have a trust. Fox, Beck, Limbaugh, et al are out there now, but you have to look for them. Conversely, you have to turn OFF the MSM to get away from their side of the issues.
There isn’t one non-liberal newspaper out there on the corner, with a non-liberal banner showing through the window of the newspaper coin machine. Fox is on cable, not the 6 o’clock or 11 o’clock local news. Even on cable, Fox is a single point, but that leaves MSNBC, CNN, HLN, Bloomberg and CNBC. Your still 3 or 4 times as likely to stumble over liberal news than Fox’s Fair & Balanced style. Even IF you don’t think Fox is F & B, that’s heavy to the lib side.
It seems to me that unless you are actively looking for a different opinion, idea or voice, you’re probably not going to hear from the right. And how many of the MSM indoctrinated liberals are actively looking for a different opinion, idea or voice?
Many of them think Fox should be turned off BECAUSE they aren’t like the rest!
As I’ve said in the past, I don’t think that Bill Clinton would have won in 1992 with today’s media.
If Obama can prevail with today’s media I can’t see Bill Clinton having insuperable difficulties.
Have I been missing all of the “prevailing” that Obama has been doing lately? Including November’s “shellacking”?
I’m tired of the terms MSM or media elites. I’m going to use the term Pauline Kael media from now on.
“…you have to turn OFF the MSM to get away from their side of the issues.”
Done, back in ’09 when I canceled my cable. I haven’t read a newspaper in years. Somehow I still feel like a whole person even though I don’t know the detailed version of the NYT’s version of what’s going on in lower Crapistan or wherever. Ever since the advent of broadcast tv people have had this idea that they need to know “what’s going on in the world” to fully participate in society. I’m here to tell you the truth that sends media conglomerates into a panic: you don’t, unless you happen to be directly involved somehow in the affairs of lower Crapistan or wherever. The average person doesn’t need to know all that crap, and the world (and his life) would be better off without him occupying his brain with half-baked distorted ideas that he gets from the professional news media. Or else you can look at it this way: the news is just another form of entertainment. It’s no more real than American Idol — actually much less so.
The most interesting development over the last several years has been the rise of the internet. The Obama campaign machine was very effective at using the internet to mobilize supporters and there were those macaca moments that were used to demonize opponents.
But now, Obama’s opponents are also using the internet to organize and his speeches and interviews don’t just disappear down the memory hole, they pop up at the most inconvenient times. The days are over when a politician can say one thing to an organization that supports the Palestinians and the exact opposite to a pro-Israel group.
Anyone who has a casual interest in following current events on the internet will stumble across videos like this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cx77K8e3WE
If you watch it to the end, you will see the protesters were about to get very violent toward the old man.
Have I been missing all of the “prevailing” that Obama has been doing lately? Including November’s “shellacking”?
1994. History. Repeat. Doomed.
Admittedly Clinton does not equal Obama, but Clinton is still in the wings giving advice and the strategy has been proven out.
Der Schtumpy +1
Have I been missing all of the “prevailing” that Obama has been doing lately? Including November’s “shellacking”?
You have heard that he was elected president, haven’t you? If he could do it it’s hard to argue Bill Clinton couldn’t have been, as you do.
Actually, even with the help of the press at the time, Clinton was only elected president because of Ross Perot. Even on reelection he couldn’t pull fifty percent of the vote. And almost anyone would have beaten McCain Palin in 2008. It’s pretty clear (read Ruth Marcus today) that even his previous ardent admirers are getting tired of The One. They’ll still support him in 2012 out of hatred of Republicans, but their hearts won’t be in it. Combine that with the fact that they’re diminished in their influence, and it’s a different world.
It is a different world, but still a world where reason can be shouted down by slogan. We are hanging way out over the abyss. Statism has been institutionalized to the point where the media almost universally accepts the progressive propaganda and is incredulous when someone opposes it.
They pat themselves on the back for calling Sarah stupid for saying party like it’s 1773. They say she’s stupid because she refers to 57 states (not having a clue to what she is referencing.)
We have an overwhelming taxpayer funding of one party and the stupid party can only wimpishly point out a fraction of a percent of it without getting demonized.
“Business is evil” unless it’s cronies that support the admin. Reason is evil, unless it’s twisted to support the state by approved messengers.
It is a different world, but ask Christine if they’d still burn her for being a witch.
Perot got Clinton elected both times, probably moreso than even the media and their made-up scanner stories and economic lynching (“oh, wait, the recession *did* end 8 months ago… our bad!”).
As far as I’m concerned, he’s as directly responsible for his giant sucking sound as anybody is.
I thought Monica was making that sound.
The average person doesn’t need to know all that crap
I really thought it couldnt get any worse. And by reading this, it suddenly did.
I knew a guy like you, reader. He used to videotape CNN. All of it. He had piles of tapes. He worked for the post office.