SAME OLD STORIES: Encouraged to loathe the lesser evil!

FRIDAY, MAY 29, 2015

Part 5—Still evil after all these years: If we lived in Putin’s Russia, or in the world of Winston Smith, the State Journalistic Mental Health Squad might take [Name Withheld] away.

His letter appears in this morning’s Washington Post. His type of mental illness is clear—he can’t internalize the story-lines which are preferred by the Marcus Bruni Official Group Insight Brigade:

LETTER TO THE WASHINGTON POST (5/29/15): Ruth Marcus noted in her May 24 op-ed column, “Clinton’s unseemly speechifying,” that people from whom Hillary Clinton takes money in exchange for speeches may be seeking to curry favor with her in her future role.

How is the expectation of the person or company who pays for a speech or the position of the speaker any different from the normal relationship between a major donor and the candidate recipient in our political system, particularly after Citizens United? Is the suspicion that there is a quid pro quo any different?

Reuters reported in April that billionaire Florida auto dealer Norman Braman, a former supporter of Jeb Bush, promised that Sen. Marco Rubio “will have the resources necessary to run a first-class campaign.”

The difference between the suspicions created or perceptions of inappropriate influence when a company pays for a speech and when a billionaire funds a campaign escapes me.

[Name Withheld], Potomac

You’re right. That letter is sad.

The writer starts by slandering Candidate Rubio. He then confesses his own mental disorder:

The difference between speaking fees and campaign contributions “escapes” him, the writer admits!

Such obvious mental disorder shouldn’t be ignored. The possibility exists that [Name Withheld] could write another letter someday about some other column in which Marcus tries to help us rubes ingest Official Insider Group Thinking.

In Putin’s Russia, the Marcus-Bruni Clear Thinking Van would take [Name Withheld] away. Before that happens, let’s get clear on what this lost soul has said.

Sadly, pitifully really, [Name Withheld] says this:

The possible influence of big money is found all through our political system. In many ways, the influence of big money isn’t a mere “possibility.” The actual rule of big money is clear as powerful industries write the industry-friendly legislation which then sails through the Congress.

Why do Americans pay two to three times as much, per person, for health care as citizens of other developed nations? This looting is an obvious offshoot of the role big money plays in fashioning legislation.

In our view, all that is implied by what [Name Withheld] wrote. As he flailed in a clear call for help, he restricted himself to a simpler point:

Presumably, big campaign contributors may seek favors from the pols to whom they contribute. But Marcus doesn’t seem to write about that! Her suspicions only seem to be aroused by speaking fees. And only when the fees go to You Know Who, of whom she says she’s “a fan!”

(In fairness, Marcus also becomes suspicious when donations go to a certain foundation so the needs of suffering children around the world can be met. That seems to trigger her too.)

Marcus finds her “hair on fire” when someone restores the hearing of children in the third world. But how strange! She doesn’t have a word to say about donations to people like Rubio. She doesn’t discuss the way the whole country is getting looted through the ridiculous costs of our industry-gimmicked health care.

Just a guess—her owners don’t like discussions like that! But, for the past twenty years, they’ve loved and enjoyed all manner of shrieking about You Know Who and her spouse.

Plainly, [Name Withheld] should be led away for his own good. He keeps thinking he sees connections where the Bruni Marcus Gang has declared that connections don’t exist and therefore shouldn’t be noticed.

He imagines a broader set of concerns about big money in our politics. Just a guess:

He might even think that someone like Marcus should focus on real abuses, abuses which have actually occurred, instead of pimping “suspicions” about uranium deals which no one seemed to think were scary at the time—uranium deals in which there is no evidence that You Know Who was involved.

[Name Withheld] should be led away, letting people like Marcus and Bruni continue their decades of work. That said, let’s consider a familiar old story which emerged in the comments to Bruni’s recent column—his column about the rapacious You Know Who and her rapacious husband, who insists on restoring kids’ sight.

As several commenters noted, Bruni’s column was rather poorly reasoned. Unfortunately, a boatload of readers seemed to swallow a central item of BruniThink, a pellet which was clearly implied by his weak-minded work.

In comments, the second commenter quickly gave voice to Bruni’s pellet of thought. By a wide margin, his comment was recommended by more readers than any other comment this day.

For the record, the commenter is a Bernie Sanders fan—a real fan, not a fan of the Marcus type. Given Sanders’ excellent politics, we think his admiration for Sanders makes complete total sense:

COMMENTER FROM CHAPEL HILL (5/24/15): As is often said, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

In a functioning democracy, none of the Republican candidates would be considered viable Presidential candidates. Most would not hold elected office. Nor would Ms. Clinton be the presumptive Democratic nominee. They all are too flawed—each deeply in the pockets of Wall Street, corporations, banks and the power elite that buy them off—I mean, finance their campaigns. None of them really care about the average American after election day.

While many people support Sen. Sanders' policies, most will state he can never win. We supposedly live in a democracy, yet most believe there is no chance to make significant changes. The status quo is baked into the democratic equation and our psyche. Republicans are worse than Democrats, but make no mistake about it, Democrats support the status quo.

So, we are left with “relativity” to support our decision of whom to support. Each party declares the other candidate is worse and most people vote against rather than for. Nothing really changes for the better because candidates who really believe in significant change aren't supported by the billionaires.

I am supporting Sen. Sanders because he is the only candidate who proposes policies that benefit my children. He is the only candidate who believes in a real society. He is the only candidate not beholden to the power elite.

Sen. Sanders is not a lesser of two evils and that is why you should support him.

“The lesser of two evils is still evil.”

To date, 495 readers have recommended this North Carolinian’s comment, which captures the sense of Bruni’s column.

That said, we think that comment is very dangerous. In our view, it’s also a dangerous same old story, a story we’ve all heard before.

Why do we think that comment is dangerous? Not because of Senator Sanders, who has excellent politics.

We think that comment is dangerous because of what happened the last time that same old story gained traction. The last time around, the Brunis and Marcuses had helped convince a lot of liberals and progressives that Candidate Gore was the lesser of two evils, and therefore was still evil.

Three weeks before the nation voted, the Associated Press quoted one progressive saying exactly that. Beth Gardiner did the report, which ran in the New York Times:

GARDINER (10/14/00): Speakers assailed Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore as ideologically similar candidates in the pocket of corporate America.

They said the two have similar views on trade, foreign policy and the war on drugs.

Mr. Moore, a filmmaker, urged the crowd not to worry that voting for Mr. Nader might help Mr. Bush by taking votes from Mr. Gore.

"The lesser of two evils, you still end up with evil," Mr. Moore said. "You don't make a decision because of fear: you make it on your hopes, your dreams, your aspirations."

He added: "Follow your conscience. Do the right thing.”

Three years later, that same filmmaker was bitterly complaining about the war which had been started by the greater of his two alleged “evils.” The lesser evil had given a speech warning against that course.

Was Candidate Gore really “evil?” Did that statement really make sense? What sort of thinking leads progressives to make such statements?

We think those are important questions as our new endless campaign starts getting pseudo-reported. We like Bernie Sanders too. Does that mean other people are “evil?” Should we start convincing ourselves of that same old story again?

A certain journalistic cult will be encouraging liberals to think that way in the next seventeen months. Four cycles back, with these same dynamics at play concerning the evils of You Know Who and his spouse, they succeeded in getting people to think that way about Candidate Gore, who was You Know Who’s chosen successor.

Dear lord, it felt so good at the time! How does that ardor look now?

“The lesser of two evils is still evil.” In our view, it’s very important for liberals to examine that talking point, which comes to us live and direct from the Bruni Marcus Barrel of Big Slick Upper-End Narrative.

All next week, we’ll examine the logic of that familiar old statement. Of all the various same old stories which were floating around last weekend, “the lesser of two evils is evil” strikes us as the most important.

This afternoon: A few more blasts from that highly destructive past