Family-friendly for me but not for thee

There's been quite a bit of discussion about Palin's family and her choice to run for office, and how Palin is a big hypocrite for refusing to support policies that are family-friendly while taking advantage of all kinds of privileges that allow her to have a family and run for office.

I actually don't think pointing this out as hypocrisy will get much, if any, traction. Here's why: According to the myth of the American Dream, the only people who deserve such pampered treatment are those who have it - which means that for many people, Palin is not a hypocrite at all. We're only suppose to be in it for ourselves, you see. The fact that many working mothers don't have the luxuries Palin does just means Palin is better, smarter, more deserving. It's not talent --> success, but success-as-evidence-of-talent.

Actually advocating for other people runs counter to the spirit of the American Dream, apparently. Palin's success is to be celebrated, but not emulated (there's an assumption in there about the inevitability of a hierarchy with a few at the top as well).

The classic Protestant Ethic - that one's access to heaven is determined by birth, and that signs of wealth in this life are merely signs that one is destined for heaven (with the subtext that any accumulation of wealth is blessed and therefore good) - is alive and well in America.

What may seem obvious to anyone to the left of, say, Bill Clinton is not, in fact, even considered true for many of Palin's supporters; as such, charges of hypocrisy on this front might easily be seen as incorrect at best and underhanded smears at worst (after all, we're supposed to be celebrating her success, not noting her hypocrisy). Or so I would guess.

"Taking Control"

To steal a phrase, I do not think that means what Mr. Fitzpatrick thinks it means:

They know that only by encouraging young people like us to take control of ourselves - our sexuality, our behavior, our values - and resist the absurd "consequence-free sex" crud we've been force-fed at OSU and elsewhere. [sic]

In other words, we're being told that "taking control" means doing what Mr. Fitzpatrick says and following only one course of action.

The Man From Hope, Special Media Edition

Specifically, CNN's Candy Crowley's. From Washington Monthly (via Hullabaloo):

Candy Crowley on CNN: Barack Obama was, indeed, awesome in his Berlin speech tonight, but watch out! Americans might decide he was a little too awesome.

Not only is it easy for me to read that as "uppity black man," but it fits right into that ludicrous right-wing narrative that daring to dream of a better future is crazy, or impossible, or stupid, or all three. You know, the one I made note of here and here.

And this from CNN.

Can we admit that the mainstream media is simply not liberal in any meaningful way? Please?

Trickle-down

From Democratic Underground via Sadly, No!, a story of what can happen when bad politics and eliminationist rhetoric trickles down.

This is one reason I'm appalled by the existence of the Bush Administration and their tactics. It's not the only one.

What followed was a coordinated effort to block Andy’s medical care or his benefit from the medical care we could secure for him. In specific, the Bush right had its agents make small donations so they could then call Paypal with allegations of fraud that froze Andy’s account. They also called Paypal, misrepresenting themselves as the hospital to “verify” that this effort was a scam.

...

As late as week before Andy died, we couldn’t keep the poisonous campaign from him. He felt well enough to log into to his email and found a multipage denunciation, supposedly being filed with his state’s attorney general. He called me, not so much in a panic. Panic was no longer a speed Andy had. He called me in despair, because he could no longer fight the barrage of hatred being leveled at him. I don’t remember what I said to him but I hope it helped for a moment.

Les Media

If there's one thing you understand about the political press, make it be this:

Here are the real rules:

(1) Liberals have the power of reason and justice on their side.

(2) That’s an unfair advantage.

(3) Therefore the game should have handicaps to make it more competitive. One of these handicaps is holding liberals to unfair, unattainable standards. Because...

(4) Politics is just a game with no real world consequences and it wouldn’t be as fun to play if everyone had to simply make up their mind based on the logic and arguments of both sides, since liberals would win pretty much every time.

We’re not racing F1 people, but MarioKart! Conservatives are lagging in the logic department, so of course they get the blue turtle shell. And another war gets started and another few hundred thousand people die needlessly, but hey, better than having a less competitive game, right?

As bizarre as this sounds, after paying attention the media and its detractors for six years straight, I really think this is how pundits and other elite political media figures view politics.

I guess when you are solidly upper-class, the reality of policy changes, which are the result of actual politics, are generally not as apparent to you. The result, of course, is coverage of that which seems inconsequential to the majority (John Edwards' haircut) and the lack of real reporting on things that matter for the vast majority the population (Iraq, funding for social programs). Of course, this coverage reflects the interests and values of the people who are on the television.

That, and as Jason Jones put it on the Daily Show, "do you know how uncomfortable the Reporter-Politician Friendship Breakfast will be if I do that?"

Finally, I should note that I do not think liberals have justice on their side, or least they very rarely do (however, they do exhibit far more reason than anyone who justifies the behavior of the current Attorney General). This point/post isn't meant to prop up liberals, but partly to point out how narrow televised political discourse is in the United States. One of the consequences of having the rules written as such is that not only do very few liberals get on television at all, but anyone to their "left" is considered persona non grata or flat-out crazy (this also reflects the values of the so-called pundit class). So in that sense the "game" really is between establishment liberals and conservatives anyone with a big mouth and batshit idea based on inequality, hate, and/or violence.