[img]7|left|||no_popup[/img]This week, three items in the news caught my attention…

Fake Anarchists Strike Again

The latest version of Ronald Reagan’s famous statement that “Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem,” comes from Charles Grassley, the Republican Senator from Iowa. In arguing against a public healthcare insurance option that would allegedly bankrupt the county, Sen. Grassley said “Government is not a competitor. Government is a predator.” He neglected to add “with big fangs, sharp claws, and a really mean disposition.”

I wrote about this faux-anarchist anti-publicanism a few months ago (see The Healthcare Debate: No Stomach for Anarchy), but this time I have to raise the question of motivation and integrity. If the people elected to govern the country don’t even believe in the beneficial role of the very government they are a part of, why should they be trusted with governing at all?

While Democrats deserve scorn for their various and significant faults, chief of which is a craven unwillingness to really stand up for what they say they believe in, the GOP only deserves admiration for the ability to keep their heads from exploding in a gooey mess of cognitive dissonance. Beyond the ideological inconsistencies and the hypocrisy (remember the sad case of Terry Schiavo?) we’ve seen from the GOP – a party increasingly defined by what it opposes rather than what it favours – Grassley’s comments ultimately point to a monstrous fraud. If the government they themselves are a part of is, in their view, a predator, a problem, a force inherently hostile to people, then there is no possible way they can govern effectively for the people. So why even be a part of the “problem,” if not for some other reason that will, understandably, feed the cynics? Money and power, of course, for their own sake.

The Revolution Will Be…Oh, Forget It
 
Despite a governorship that rightly leads to questions as to whether California has become a failed state – and surely the bulk of the blame rests with the useless legislature – I have to admire Gov. Schwarzenegger’s attempt to re-vamp the tax system from scratch. But as with just about everything that has come from his good intentions, admiration eventually goes splat when the results are – let’s be charitable – underwhelming. In its report, the Commission on the 21st Century Economy recommends:

• A “tax rate of 2.75 percent for taxable income up to $56,000 for joint filers ($28,000 single filers) and 6.50 percent for taxable incomes above that amount.” This, after a Standard deduction of $45,000 for joint filers ($22,500 single filers).
• With a few exceptions, eliminate the state General Fund portion (5 percent) of the SUT.
• Eliminate the Corporation and Minimum Franchise taxes (respectively 8.84 percent and $800 minimum)
• Establish the Business Net Receipts Tax, which “would apply to all net receipts of almost all entities doing business in California. The BNRT is designed to tax the value a business adds in its production of products and services in California at a relatively low rate.”

But of course this is a proposal that, while cutting taxes for everyone, ultimately benefits the rich while continuing the trend of treating the middle class like a mule. And what is, exactly, this weird BNRT? The L.A. Times’ Michael Hiltzik offers a thorough critique, but the bigger point isn’t simply that the commission squandered a valuable opportunity but that it may not be possible to create, let alone exploit, valuable opportunities.
 
The Faux in the Pen House

When Mr. Noonan offered truth in reporting as the secret to Fox News’ success, he overlooked a more obvious explanation – despite hinting at it with his observation that “Listening to Mr. Beck’s captivating conclusions…is like watching a gorgeous girl sashay down the boardwalk.” The Playboy invocation may not be so bad: Fox News is successful because it is more entertaining than the competition. Who delivers the most drama: Glenn Beck with his bouts of crying and mock-gasoline-pouring theatrics, MSNBC’s David Shuster with his mild excitability, or public television’s Jim Lehrer calmly talking into the camera? For the same reason that TV shows with so-wickedly-bad-they’re-juicy-good characters – Sex! Drugs! Back-stabbing! – are hugely popular, so, too, is Fox News. All the big names in commenting – Beck, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity – are masters of rhetorical flourishes. That they command so much critical attention from the “left” is simply a reflection of the fact that their message reaches millions of people. Does it make any more sense to ignore them than to ignore Sarah Palin, a vice-presidential candidate? Curiously, while excoriating the left for focusing on right-wing personalities whose popularity eclipses that of left-wing folk we forget that the right has its own boogie men and women to obsessively froth about. Al Gore, anyone?

As for the reporting side, even as early as 2001 the media watchdog FAIR made a case for a right-wing bias based in part on the Republican makeup of Fox News executives and reporting staff, the way in which Fox News chooses which stories to report and how, as well as the pre-ponderance of “conservative” commentators. I’m trying to think of a major liberal on Fox, but forget it – Colmes was a bowl of oatmeal. But to a large extent the whole focus on Fox News misrepresents what the fuss is about. The issue isn’t Fox News vs. the “liberal” media; it’s corporate media, which most definitely includes MSNBC and CNN, vs. authentic journalism. It’s about actually reporting the news vs. making money from entertaining audiences with news-like products.

Throw into the mix the human propensity for confirmation bias – we seek out evidence that reinforces our views and dismiss contradictory evidence – and the secret to Fox News’s success ultimately is simple. Fox tells a large number of (Republican/conservative) people what they want to hear in a dramatic, satisfying, Jerry Springer-style. And they’re better at it than anyone else, although MSNBC tries hard with a Democratic/liberal audience.

The Common Link

If there’s a link to the above other than a scattered attention on my part, it is simply that it has become increasingly difficult to hold faith in any notion of freedom. The information we receive, manipulated and corrupted (hyper-real, in technical terms), hinders our ability to make informed decisions based on reality rather than wishful perception. Politics have, at long last, given up any vestigial idealism, except for the odd attempt to keep up appearances, of the kind that influenced the Founding Fathers. All we get are reheated leftovers cynically, or simply naively, paraded as revolutions. Corporations, specifically banks, run amok. The result is that we, as individuals, become trapped in a system over which it is no longer possible to exert any control short of resorting to extremes. I suspect that The Prisoner, that classic TV series, may have been prophetic in arguing that freedom is a myth.

Frédérik invites you to discuss this week's column at his blog www.inkandashes.net.