Book review: The Republican Noise Machine

And it’s relevance for today

I am still reading David Brock’s book of course, it has a lot of history behind it, as he tries to detail what he regards as the rise of the “right.” Of course, it does get tedious to see “right wing” and “conservative” in just about every sentence.  I don’t quite know why, since the kind of people he describes don’t seem very “right wing” or “conservative” in their political or generally ideological views.  What is disturbingly revealing, and if Brock is right about this, is how much the “right” owes their rise to power based on Communist-style tactics and objectives.  Even further, they demonstrate this totalitarian mind-set that is straight out of the Marxist playbook.


Glenn Beck is going to hold a “TEA Party” rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on the same day as the “I have a dream” speech by Martin Luther King. “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” had something about that last night, and today, it was discussed somewhat on “Washington Week.” What seems to have been missed in the discussion of course, as members of the news media went about declaring that the “TEA Party” doesn’t seem to think that anyone in Washington, DC represents them, that the “affluent” insiders of Congress are somehow “apart” from the “angry” and “unrepresented” “TEA Party” members. What isn’t discussed is that these people are only being manipulated by an affluent personality who certainly does not represent themselves. But they none the less see him as a “hero.”


Since when has a “libertarian” point of view become suddenly “the right?”  I have seen various “where do you stand on the political spectrum  models and polls and the Libertarian position which is basically anti-authority was decisively a left wing point of view.  If in fact the “TEA Party” is anti-authority, precisely opposed to a lot of government, why would such a position that was once regarded as left wing now become “the right?”  Then, let David Brock’s book explain.

It is called propaganda.  Brock detailed exactly what the radical fringe that battened onto “traditional” Republicanism used to make themselves “acceptable.”  People who came from a racist background, claim to support American liberty or freedom.  Thus Paul Weyrich’s The Free Congress Foundation.  (Free from the influence of Democrats.)  The State’s Rights Party.  (Who obviously have an issue with civil rights.)  Brock presents quite a list.  At the same time, the radical fringe included “former” Communists and those affiliated with Socialists by blood relationships.  Back in the 1950s, during the McCarthy era, it was “bad news” to be seen as a Communist, to have any association what so ever with Communists or Socialists by blood relation or marriage.  But the “former” Communists, whom Brock named extensively; while publicly denouncing Communism and attacking the “mainstream” media for its “Communist” influence made use of the Communist tactics to “insist on” having a place in the media that they utterly hated.  To create an “alternative press” that as Brock was to note, dispensed with journalistic ethics and standards.  To make no place for anyone who held a difference of opinion in their “alternative” views, while demanding “balance” in the “liberal” press.  So that it didn’t matter if they lied, or distorted, or slimed, or smeared, etc.; as long as they had a public podium from which to speak.  What they wanted, was to form public opinion.  Brock would certainly be right about that.  To shape it to mold it, to achieve an assurance of national prominence and power in this nation.

When looking at the antics of the “TEA Party” today, I see people who were fed what the Communist inspired “right” deemed truths and facts regardless of the lack of both.  And that “intellectual honesty” had more to do with agreeing with people who founded News Max or the American Spectator, than having sound research, facts and evidence in front of you.  Couple this with religious activists who have demonstrated their own hatred of democracy.  It simply wouldn’t do, would it now, for a secular democracy to host just any religion, witness the uproar over the proposed Islamic Cultural Center near ground zero.

The proposal that had been bruited about that anything that was decided, constitutionally or otherwise, must be done from a basis in the bible.  And yet, when one takes a good long look at any one of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, there is in fact a biblical principle behind them.  And these are principles that “Christians” don’t seem to recognize:  When I was a stranger at your gate, you welcomed me.  Benjamin Franklin, as a supporter of the first amendment in particular, was prepared to argue that the City of Brotherly love, Philadelphia, could even become a place where an Iman could preach.  When I was naked, you clothed me.  On the Statue of Liberty, you will find these words:  Give me your poor, your hungry…the teeming masses who yearn to be free.  When I was hungry, you fed me.  Compare that to the “unregulated markets” speech that come from Congressional GOP or the anti-tax positions of the fringe radicals who have a problem recognizing the “wealth” that anti-tax measures have buttressed don’t “trickle down” and assure new jobs but rather to be held closely in the hands of the few who demonstrate nothing of “Christian” compassion found in Christ’s Sermon on the Mount.  Where the bible could have counted, as a moral obligation of “Christians” on the behalf of their fellow Americans, seems the Sermon on the Mount is for “the other guy” to uphold, but not me.

I have posted before about what happened to the “free markets” that Congressional GOP want to be “unregulated.”  Apparently, it would not do to remember recent history when these unregulated markets to include financial institutions operating nationally and even internationally proceeded to collapse and actually needed federal bailouts to stay in business.  To continue to make the argument that “unregulated markets” are an absolute necessity when they were the cause of this nation’s economic collapse has to be insanity.  But then again, if you are Communist inspired, then destruction of an institution of the market place would be more than welcome, wouldn’t it?  Just as in Brock’s book, the Communist inspired “right wing” wished to destroy the institution of the free press.  And to oppose the idea that dissent is perfectly acceptable, unless of course, it is their own.

A long time ago, I still recall this letter, I had just got out of the active duty service; a woman published what she regarded as the means by which the Bolsheviks could go about conquering nations.  Among them:  destroying institutions and destroying natural leaders.  Divide and conquer became a mantra of the “right” along with the politics of destruction.  To manufacture and “us versus them” situation:  Women v the “unborn child,” the embryonic stem cell research versus the sick and disabled, unions versus their employers, the rich versus the poor, whites versus minorities, men versus women, boys who should be liberated now that women have achieved theirs, “Christians” versus whoever.  The institution that makes this nation unique, a democracy, how well does it hold together when everyone is against everyone else?

Even longer ago than when that letter was published, a really old guy (when you are a kid, anyone white-haired and balding becomes a really old guy) came to Borah school and ranted about how Communists would drape themselves in the flag to seem “respectable.”  But beware.  I have no idea now, who he was.  But given Brock’s book some 40 years later, “The Republican Noise Machine” seems to have become a culmination of that warning.  Grover Norquist “inspired” by various Communist tactics that were originally a warning against their inevitable influence? How much better to become “respectable” than to take on the mantle of the GOP?  But then as fringe radicals, to set about undermining (as Brock was to put it in Orwellian fashion) the very things they claimed to defend?  Which is sad.

Liberal and free have the same root.  A “liberal” press is only the same as the free press.  A press who’s primary business is to educate and inform, to investigate and expose, to present itself as a watchdog against anything that would truly damage the public well being, is a free press.  To have that press “answer to” specific interests, to benefit only those interests, to pass the agendas of interest groups onto the public (as Brock was to provide great detail on) does not “inform” anyone.  Basically, the “conservative” press became a highly politicized tabloid journalism.  It didn’t matter if facts were shunted aside for smear campaigns, as long as this well-financed marketing ploy shaped public opinion.  And “serious” news can be replaced with blow by blow accounts of celebrities such as the late Michael Jackson when he found himself facing a judge over accusations of child molestation.  But what couldn’t be covered, apparently, was informing the public of damaging legislation that the GOP (for example) was passing against their interests.  Indeed, Bob Novak (who helped to out a CIA operative) could be called “respected” by Wolf Blitzer for literally damaging national security and putting at risk his fellow Americans.

The question that I must continue to ask, what makes this the right wing?  People who undermine and even destroy the foundations of this country, who pit people against one another with the sort of shrill partisan politics that raise up so much anger that people now forget what this country was founded upon and what it has given them.  That is not and never will be “right wing” to me.  People who spend more than 30 years trying to burn down the house and finally succeed during the tenure of GW, aren’t “right wing.”  The right, respect what they have, value what historically the founding fathers passed down through the ages.  They do not set about to destroy anything, just because that other guy may also benefit.  Why?  Because once it is destroyed, they lose it as well.

On the other hand, the radical fringe absolutely do not care what they destroy, they want the power.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Book review: The Republican Noise Machine”

  1. Norman Bustos Says:

    Very interesting article you got there. It helped me a lot and I’m definitely coming back to your site again in the future. Keep up the good work.

  2. Haywood Kall Says:

    I found this information usefull.

  3. Joy Colden Says:

    This is a usefull post.

  4. Monica Festy Says:

    I was walking at the mall when I noticed a thief dashing towards the exit carrying a bag from a young lady. I was relieved that it wasn’t me whose bag was stolen but I felt sorry for the victim. Life in general can be unexpectedly harsh for some of us. I was watching my children playing by the lawn and they were so busy playing with their toys. I constantly enjoy watching them as they are but every time I start thinking that they’ll be going to school before long worries me. Life in general can be very happy when you’re still little but things become difficult as you grow up.

  5. Curtis Camarata Says:

    Excellent article my friend. This is exactly what I’ve been looking for for quite a time now. You have my gratitude man.

  6. Bernita Ebener Says:

    Sometimes I just think that people write and dont really have much to say. Not so here

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: