Murdoch the uber-pimp

The New York Post has endorsed Hillary Clinton. I'm leaving. Earth.

For anyone reading OgBH who is not familiar with The New York Post, it is the most flagrantly, bombastically, propagandistic piece of right-wing filth to ever be called a newspaper (thought it has a decent sports section, which is why it survives). Lest you think I am exaggerating, take a look at this classic gem of journalistic integrity. This is real. Trees were felled, and ink spilled.

This seemingly improbable turn of events should not, in fact, come as a surprise to anyone - myself included - who has been paying attention. Clinton has been in bed with Murdoch for much of 2006. Folks, if there's anyone reading this who still harbors any illusions about the political virtues of Hillary Clinton, please let this be the day when you wrap those illusions in a towel, hit them in the head with a ball-peen hammer, and bury them in the back yard next to Speckles the Barn Cat. Clinton will move as far to the right as she needs to get elected, and she does not mind the stench of the devil himself.

Rupert Murdoch - the owner of the Post, as well as half the solar-system - is not just some rich guy expressing his free-speech rights. He is arguably more influential in world-politics than any professional politician on Earth. He creates the memes, and buys the officials to carry them to fruition. He incubates the neo-cons and the neo-libs from the same cell batch.

People like Murdoch do not have "political values" in any traditional sense - their wealth and influence puts them too far above the polis for that. He is just as happy to use his vast media empire to secure the top-office for a "liberal" like Tony Blair as a "conservative" like Bush. His strategy is simple - find out where the popular wind is blowing, and infiltrate the ranks. This triangulation is best performed by finding figures like Bush, Blair, and Clinton who, as "neos", are demonstrably open to the corporate agenda on fiscal policy - i.e. trade liberalization, tax breaks, and the evisceration of anti-monopoly laws, along with a hawkish foreign policy.

In the United States, Murdoch is most closely identified with Fox Television, which - thanks to Fox News - is thought to correspond to the "conservative" Bush agenda. This is a dangerous misapprehension. Let's remember that, when the Fox network first hit the airwaves in the 80's, it was known for being hip, "edgy", and left-of-center, thanks to shows like the The Simpsons, Married With Children, and a host of others. It was even criticized at the time corrupting the youth of America with ultra-liberal (i.e. hedonistic) values. Its entertainment programming still attempts to follow this model today. When Fox commentators like O'Reilly and Hannity rail against the values of the "left-wing" entertainment media, they are complaining about trends that were and are spearheaded by their own network.

Though the individual players (Matt Groening vs. Bill O'Reilly, for instance) may not see it, this conflict is the product of deliberate design. We must not underestimate the degree to which media moguls have employed psychologists and social scientists to their cause, or the fact that they have had decades of group-testing to know how viewers emotionally respond to their products. If watching Fox makes you feel angry, anxious, or powerless, that is because they want you to feel that way. Their entertainment is sexually permissive, irreverent, and fantastical - in other words, escapist. Their news programming, with its blood-red set design and militaristic severity, comes back at you like a cold dose of unfriendly reality - a slap in the face. It's a kind of good-cop/bad-cop maneuver, softening you up for the kill.

What is the "kill"? Obedience, and through this, addiction to the teat of consumerism. The overarching message is that society is fraying, is becoming surreal and immoral, and that only strong leadership can bring order. The myth of "social decline" is an ancient trope, and here it is revived in a post-modern form - create outrage, and then protest it. The beauty of this set-up is that it works equally well regardless of the fortunes of whomever is office - for they can be portrayed as either the cause or the savior in accordance with the tides of public perception. The key here is to keep the programming - both news and entertainment - focused on issues of domestic life, especially divisive social issues which produce quick and emotional responses, and away from international economic realities, where multi-national corporations operate unobserved and unchecked.

What kind of politicians survive best in this climate? Keep in mind that politicians are consumers of the media just like you and I, and their power to frame the debate is limited by the corporate agenda. When domestic church-talk is all we think about, this is all our politicians debate. The result is the same for conservative and liberal politicians alike: to the whores, go the spoils.

Bill Clinton was our great proto-pomo-politician. Handed the 1992 election by Perot's leeching-off of the Bush vote, Clinton was a champion of NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO long before Gingrich led the takeover of Congress. The corporate assault on the middle class began with Reagan and Bush sr., was kicked into overdrive by Clinton, and continued with Bush. Arguments about gays and fetuses kept us distracted as this trend continued, though the encroaching sense of doom we've been feeling is quite real - we've been getting poorer and more powerless.

The Bush-Clinton dynasties survive by selling us false hope, offering band-aid solutions to real economic problems that are never properly described or articulated in public discourse. This allows them to protect their corporate clients from any genuine populist uprising, and also maintains the popular unrest, cynicism, and despair over politics which sustains the corporate juggernaut. We are, in effect, like burn victims, wrapped in gauze and hooked to a morphine drip...forever.

Hillary Clinton, then, is the new Bush. And the new Clinton. We should take note of the recent article in the Atlantic Monthly, which notes that she's become such a clever "player" that she has ceased to stand for anything. The very same month, Harper's warns that the same political lobotomy is befalling Barack Obama. The two most popular Democrats - already bought and spoken for. We can look forward to slightly cheaper healthcare, and moderately increased help on loans and credit-card debt. Maybe.

The cycle of giddiness and despair is, indeed, an addict's manic journey. And we can see it across the ocean as well, in the U.K., where Murdoch has signalled support...for the Conservatives.