Thursday, January 16, 2020

A Distraction Inside a Diversion Within a Deflection

I almost feel sorry for CNN, the most mistrusted name in news. As you've probably heard, one of its debate moderators belligerently asked Bernie Sanders why he had told Elizabeth Warren that a woman could never win the presidency rather than if he had told her this.

This tacky episode of desperately obvious collusion between the war industry-financed cable giant and the faltering campaign of Elizabeth Warren puts CNN in a real quandary as Donald Trump's impeachment trial opens in the Senate. How will its reporters juggle the onerous task of breathlessly hyping the drama of Ukrainegate while simultaneously hyping their contrived family feud between Sanders and Warren? Do they break from the testimony to do panel discussions on Warren and Sanders giving each other the side-eye? Do they cover the boring speeches by the "impeachment managers" or do they air Donald Trump bloviating about witch hunts and unfairness on the White House lawn or at another one of his Nuremberg-style rallies? What if another hell of a continent-engulfing fire breaks out just as the climate-denying senators are fretting about the scandal of delayed weapons appropriations in the new Cold War? What if Trump murders another foreign leader right in the middle of his trial while Adam Schiff is discussing foreign terrorism and improving America's reputation?  It's a real dilemma, not just for CNN, but for the whole media borg. 

In normally balanced times of abnormality, we're used to seeing a permanent split screen, images divided between the requisite two manufactured narratives and leading actors. But with the petty partisan politics of impeachment vying for attention with the petty partisan politics of the Warren-Sanders kerfuffle vying with the petty partisan politics of Everyday Trump vying with whatever mass shootings and climate catastrophes are happening in the world, our invisible TV pixels might devolve into visible pixels requiring a magnifying glass to see. Just the chyrons alone, vying for desperate attention on the top, bottom and both sides of the screen, might require the purchase of a whole separate screen to keep us properly informed. Maybe they should start selling smarter TVs with pre-split multiple screens that are bigger than a house... that is, to the lucky few who still live in houses, which are increasingly being used as hiding places for laundered oligarchic loot rather than as actual dwelling places for human beings.

Thus far I've only been able to find a gadget that breaks up your already-small screen into six separate compartments for your enhanced viewing confusion. To be fair, it is not marketed for use by just one viewer, but to multiple family members or housemates who fight over what to watch on their one TV and who can now supposedly get along in blissful cacophonous peace and harmony




Is it me, or are we finally entering the terminal stage of our great national psychosis in unreal real time, what with all these manufactured and unnatural events competing for our ever more divided and shortened attention spans?

But enough of these depressing dystopian musings! Let's talk just a bit more about that way too obvious conspiracy between Elizabeth Warren and CNN to destroy the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. As others have written, this is all for the benefit of Joe Biden, or perhaps for the benefit of Pete Buttigieg and Michael Bloomberg. Playing the sexism card against Bernie rather than against Gropey Sniffy Joe is Warren's tacit way of admitting she has no chance to be the nominee. Her task is to prove to Biden and the corrupt Democratic establishment that when they go low, she goes lower. She is a team player and a worthy candidate for the vice presidency or at least for a top-level cabinet position.

If Warren had been truly, sincerely disturbed by Sanders's alleged sexist remark at that private dinner more than a year ago, wouldn't she have spoken up in the immediate aftermath in order to warn progressives and feminists where this guy's head was really at?

Her belated accusation reeks of the Hail Mary pass. Faced with her imminent defeat, she has desperately pivoted from "I've got a plan for that"  to embracing the same old head fake of stale identity politics. She portrays herself - and by extension, all of womanhood -  as the quintessential victim. Of course, the best and the brightest of the victimized will nevertheless  "fight back" against the male sex as a substitute for fighting back against the patriarchal capitalism which afflicts every living thing on earth: men, women, children, flora and fauna.

Abandoning her brand as the populist champion of working class solidarity, Warren is now wholeheartedly embracing the centrist cult of neoliberal individualism. She is a good loyal friend to capitalism. It was always a contradiction for her to claim to be "a capitalist to my bones" from one side of the mouth and to assert that "I'm with Bernie!" with the other. The truth is now out there. Whether her calculated choice succeeds in damaging Sanders and rewarding Biden - and, ultimately, Trump - remains to be seen.

Warren, meanwhile, is using the solemnity of the impeachment to dissociate her own self from the kerfuffle she has caused. But CNN is having none of it, scoffing at the widespread criticism of its anti-Bernie bias and complaining that Warren refused further comment as she was entering the Senate chamber. CNN's Chris Cilizza vows that his network is not giving up the story about Warren's fight without a fight! Because a story is a story and it won't be the end of the story.

Capitalism hates class solidarity - unless, of course, it is plutocratic class solidarity.

 And it certainly does love those lonely individual downtrodden fighters who can beat all the odds and serve as shining examples of grit and fortitude to the rest of us poor slobs. Capitalism loves it when the teeming masses vicariously identify with such downtrodden elites as Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton and Meghan Markle... or conversely, with the beleaguered persona of Donald Trump. The more effectively we can be taught to disassociate from our own lives, root for their fortunes and disdain the "haters" who do not, then the less likely it is that we will ever join forces in solidarity with our similarly atomized brothers and sisters.

Capitalism doesn't care a whit about the sincerity of the downtrodden elites that it chooses to market and showcase. It certainly doesn't care whether or not its current star attraction, Donald Trump, is re-elected. In fact, the oligarchs are banking on his re-election, given how this master showman would in all likelihood defeat Biden or Buttigieg or Bloomberg.

Bernie Sanders is their designated enemy. But what really scares them and sends them to their loot-stuffed fainting couches is an informed, angry and motivated populace.

United we stand. Divided by a confusing infinity of split TV screens and manufactured controversies, we fall. 

10 comments:

Erik Roth said...

"Progressives, trust your gut: Elizabeth Warren is not one of us.
Warren loves to antagonize the super-rich – but her campaign seems suspiciously designed to stave off revolution."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/24/elizabeth-warren-not-progressive

24 Nov 2019 ~ by Nathan Robinson

Erik Roth said...

"CNN’s Debate Performance Was Villainous and Shameful —
The 24-hour network combines a naked political hit with a cynical ploy for ratings"

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/january-democratic-debate-2020-cnn-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-938365/

January 15, 2020 ~ by Matt Taibbi

"We’ll find out in Iowa and New Hampshire what Democratic Party voters believe about that Warren-Sanders meeting, but that grimy story pales in comparison to the bigger picture: Episodes like this are why people hate the media."

Erik Roth said...


The ever so smarmy David Brooks hits a staggering new low in the NYT:

"The Bernie Sanders Fallacy --
No, Virginia, there is no class war."

Here's a link with my posted comment:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/opinion/the-bernie-sanders-fallacy.html#commentsContainer&permid=104669564:104669564



Erik Roth said...


Two podcasts apropos and worth your attention:

Ep. 19: The Sad Downfall of Elizabeth Warren —

https://www.podbean.com/media/share/dir-dxiyt-7b87680?utm_campaign=w_share_ep&utm_medium=dlink&utm_source=w_share

2020-01-15
Michael Moore shares his personal history with both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who both starred in 2009's "Capitalism: A Love Story.”
In very personal terms, he addresses the possible fracture within the progressive movement and why we must move past this in order to ensure the defeat of both Donald Trump and the rotten system that produced Trump.


Useful Idiots: Glenn Greenwald on Russiagate and Mainstream Media —
January 17, 2020
Plus, Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper’s take on Warren vs. Sanders.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/glenn-greenwald-russiagate-taibbi-useful-idiots-podcast-939380/


And note this:

‘Liz Was a Diehard Conservative’ —
Elizabeth Warren doesn’t like to talk about it, but for years she was a registered Republican.
Why she left the GOP—and what it means for her campaign.
April 12, 2019 ~ by ALEX THOMPSON

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/12/elizabeth-warren-profile-young-republican-2020-president-226613

"It was not until 1996—when Warren was 47 years old and a newly minted Harvard law professor—that she changed her registration from Republican to Democrat.”


So, Elizabeth Warren voted for Nixon, for Reagan, and for Poppy Bush.




Mark Thomason said...

There are news reports that the Sanders campaign asked for legal opinion on whether Warren could be both VP and Treasury Sec at the same time. The answer seems to be, Yes.

that would be a wonderful solution, combining the status of VP office with the real power of Treasury on the very subjects that have most interested Warren for the longest. As such a very powerful Cabinet member, she could keep tabs on other issues too, whatever interests her.

That would be a perfect stepping stone to 2024, which must be a bridge too far for Sanders. Then Warren could choose the next generation, which has to date been stunted by the whole Team Hillary debacle.

Jay–Ottawa said...


Learning that Sanders is exploring the idea of Warren for VP and Treasury raises doubts about Bernie's revolutionary spirit and his ability at personnel selection should he become The One.

Warren has indeed worked hard "from the inside" to pull the DNC to the left, but with little success. In fact, she's become more DNC-like than the DNC has become more like the original progressive fighter called Elizabeth Warren.

Ideally––that is to say with rose-coloured glasses on––we might suppose she and Bernie are both stomaching the DNC until one of them, or both in harness on the same ticket, get elected, at which point they would drop the masks, take off the gloves and boldly reshape the DNC in their own progressive image.

After living through the Obama double cross and reading the two articles below I have a hard time hoping in that scenario. The way it looks right now, the DNC with its super delegates will carry the day right through another managed primary and convention. In which case, brace for TWA (Trump wins again.)

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/01/

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/09/elizabeth-warren-democratic-party-establishment-ties-hillary-clinton-emailsthe-credibility-gap

Mark Thomason said...

Jay -- If you are correct, then it is hopeless. If Warren is sold out, and Bernie lost his revolutionary spirit, then there is nobody left. We are toast. We mustn't just assume the worst and give up. Somebody must offer something, and to date Sanders and Warren are all we've got with any slight chance to do that job.

Patricia M. said...

To my mind, Sanders IS all we’ve got. If he is defeated by the DNC, Elizabeth Warren, and the increasingly disturbing drift pitting women against men, then we ARE toast. Period. A thoughtful piece relating to this:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/09/the-prospect-of-an-elizabeth-warren-nomination-should-be-very-worrying

After having watched the NYT editorial board’s endorsement process last night, I am even more worried.

Jay–Ottawa said...


I agree, Mark, those two are all we've got. And I will vote for either one if they're still standing by November 2020.

I finally must admit, despite all the equal signs I used to put between the Reps and the Dems, between Trump and Hillary, between the bought and the bought, that Trump and his retooled GOP probably have developed into a much bigger nightmare for the US and the world than Hillary and the DNC's cast of characters might have provided.

So, as the NYT did this morning with its curious endorsement of two for the same office, I'm coming out with my own endorsement of Bernie and Warren.

Alexander Pope was right: "Hope springs eternal...." Voters are never blessed by the people they elect. Instead, they (the voters) live in anticipation of future blessings never quite within reach.

Mark Thomason said...

Jay -- I think Hillary threatened a far more efficient version of the same evils, likely to do far worse than Trump has managed. She'd have spun up wars, blown Wall Street into vast new abuses, and undermined medical care far more effectively than Trump has. It isn't that she meant worse, it is that she was competent, and her help was competent, to get more of the worse actually done. She would have been a far worse nightmare.