Monday, December 19, 2011

The Courage of Herman Cain and the Weasely Cowardice of Chris Hayes

Look, I'm trying to like Chris Hayes. Really, really trying. I mean, I can't be totally turned off and cynical regarding every member of the so-called Professional Left, or even every political pundit, can I?

Maybe it's me. Maybe, like George Clooney, I just remember when we had three networks, a Meet the Press which really met the press and Walter Cronkite, instead of socialites, social climbers, failed corporate lawyers, soccer moms and assorted drunks pontificating about the current political climate - in particular the President.

So, Sunday morning, Chris Hayes, who reminds me of Horshack's older and more intelligent brother on speed, sat down with a bunch of elitist talking heads a panel, which included Karen Hunter and Anne-Marie Slaughter in order to chew the fat on various political issues of the previous week.

Here's the video. You don't have to watch it all - just the first 20 minutes will suffice:-

The first issue discussed was the patronising Forbes article by Gene Marks, purporting to advise a poor inner city African American child how to lift himself out of the poverty cycle. In the middle of the discussion - around the five-minute mark, Karen Hunter asks a valid question: Why aren't we talking, as well, about the poor white child in Appalachia or the poor white child in a trailer park someplace?

She has a point. Poverty is poverty, and it's colour-blind; and it was disheartening that the rest of the panel, all of whom were so obviously ignorant of the ignorance they were tut-tutting over - Anne-Marie Slaughter even announced herself as being one of the upper middle class - that someone, anyone of that lot should have been beholden to remember that the Democratic Party, before it took up the banner for the fabled middle class - was always the party of the working class and working poor.

After all, to quote a wise, old Democratic sage (my late Southern daddy), if you have to work to live, you're working class.

Then, the discussion changes to what Hayes excitedly deems "The Ron Paul Experience." You can tell Chris Hayes is anxious to get away from any discussion of poverty and working classes, especially since Karen Hunter intimated that poverty wasn't just something experienced by inner city African Americans. After all, for most people like Chris Hayes, poor whites in Appalachia and in assorted trailer parks are easily equated with being rednecks and racist. It wouldn't do to have your illusions so dispelled.

Chris is excited by Ron Paul, especially the things Ron Paul really, really, really wants to excite people like Chris Hayes - the theory that US foreign policy in the Middle East (specifically with regard to Israel) intstigated the 9/11 attacks, the Paulian desire to withdraw all US troops from every corner of the earth and to contribute nil dollars in foreign aid of any kind, to end the Fed and end the drug wars by legalising all drugs.

That's the good Ron Paul. That's what spooks the Republican party and what's attracting hordes of young people to Ron Paul's version of hope and change. It's positively oxymoronic that they would extol what they perceive to be Ron Paul's honesty, at the expense of deeming the most liberal President since FDR a liar.

I wonder if race could, subconsciously, be a factor in any of that?

Speaking of which, and you can tell that he really, really, really doesn't want to recognise this, Chris Hayes does bring up the little matter of Ron Paul's newsletters, which are just that teensy-weensy racist. You can actually read the contents of some of these newsletters here.

It's pretty disgusting stuff. I was actually pretty amazed that Slaughter tried to play these down as pretty inconsequential because they were published several years ago; even Hayes seemed amused by them. But they're anything but amusing; they're bloody disturbing, considering that Ron Paul, himself, has been inconsistent in admitting how closely linked he actually is to the contents of these letters, even claiming one time that he was unaware of any racist content within the letters, which is abject bullshit. It matters not whether Paul wrote the letters, himself or whether a ghostwriter is responsible, he signed off on them when they appeared under his letterhead, and he's never condemned the content.

The fact that Ron Paul thinks the Civil Rights' Act is unconstitutional was worth a mention too, but not a discussion per se - just a mention, all of which was treated like a trite cocktail party joke. The only real joke I perceived was the fact that Chris Hayes, political pundit, thought Grover Cleveland Alexander had been President of the United States twice, instead of a major league baseball player in the early part of the Twentieth Century. Go figure that one.

Chris Hayes's wet-knickery attitude toward Ron Paul is the prime example of what Jonathan Chait identifies as the result of no one in the media challenging Paul on his thornier ideals and philosophies. Like Grover Cleveland Alexander wouldn't do, they soft-ball and soft-peddle questions his way, almost knowing that a lot of his answers will appeal to social liberals. As Chait maintains, this way, Paul has been able to cast himself in the most flattering light to diverse audiences. After all, he is as much a politician as the flip-flopper, himself, Mitt Romney.

Another thing Hayes and his ilk ignore about Paul is his economic philosophy, which Paul Krugman so brilliantly dismantled recently as a total would-be failure. But then, they ignore, as well the fact that Ron Paul also believes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional, as is any Federal assistance in infrastructure, education and the environment.

And that brings me to Herman Cain, the unforgettable ABC ("a black conservative") and "9-9-9" Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan one-time Republican frontrunner.

Remember this moment in CainLand:-

Herman Cain's immortal assertion that if you're poor and unemployed in America, it's your fault.

That's actually what Ron Paul believes. It's also what Newt Gingrich believes. And Michelle Bachmann. And Rick Santorum. And probably Mitt Romney. And Paul Ryan definitely believes it.

The difference between them and Herman Cain is that Cain actually said it out loud.

So I hope all Ron Paul's newest acolytes from the Progressive Left, led by the short and curlies to Ron Paul via the Professional Left, continue to ignore bad Paul and concentrate on new Paul as the one who will bring Hope and Change. He might bring Dope and Change, but then I hope when they find themselves poor and unemployed in Ron Paul's America, that they remember that it's all their fault.

No comments:

Post a Comment