UnSafe Thoughts: Recent Episodes
Roddey Reid
“In the world SAFE claims for Carol, itself, and viewers, there are no safe social spaces, no safe healthcare practices, no safe critical perspectives, and, lest we forget, no safe cinema.”
Sources: Darrell Nance / CC BY-SA Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America / CC BY-SA; AFGE CCBY
What follows are some thoughts on the deteriorating political climate within and outside the Democratic Party. As with my previous article on Mike Bloomberg’s corporate raid on the Democratic Party, my worry is about the fate of the progressive and liberal wing of the party and its allied movements and organizations, especially at the hands of resolutely hostile mainstream media organizations.
Whipsaw Politics
The ups and downs of the Democratic primaries have witnessed:
· the spectacle of a panicked party establishment and its allies under pressure from:
o the faltering campaign of preferred candidate Joe Biden
o the surge of Bernie Sanders’s campaign, especially after the Nevada caucuses, that was based on a widening base of diverse support including Latino and union voters and the “army” of “hordes” of Sanders supporters
o the aggressive candidacy of Mike Bloomberg, initially welcomed by some Democratic elected officials and members of the DNC, but whose vast campaign operations ($500M on advertising alone) and resources threatened to upend the primaries by bypassing some of them, foregoing outside donations, having the DNC bend existing rules to allow him to debate, and calling on Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar to withdraw before the Nevada debate, a high-pressure demand that spectacularly backfired
· the evisceration of Mike Bloomberg in the Nevada and South Carolina debates by Elizabeth Warren for his political and business record and public statements regarding women and communities of color
· the rapid consolidation of senior party leader support behind Biden after Biden’s 30-point win in South Carolina following important endorsement of Congressman Jim Clyburn, and the return of (mostly older) southern Black voters as a force in the Democratic Party
· the suspension of Amy Klobuchar’ and Pete Buttigieg’s campaigns before Super Tuesday and their endorsement of Biden
· Biden’s exceptionally strong performance in Super Tuesday leaving him with a delegate lead over Sanders, and more important, a tremendous political momentum
· The suspension of Bloomberg campaign after Super Tuesday and his endorsement of Biden
· Elizabeth Warren’s suspension her progressive campaign after, not before, Super Tuesday. She has yet to endorse any candidate
The Mainstream Media’s Targeting of Political Candidates
Beyond the whipsawing nature of these events, my experience as a longtime student of political intimidation and public bullying in the U.S. and Europe has taught me that this has much to do with the dominant mainstream media discourse. Political and economic establishments and their media allies push back hard when they feel challenged by progressive or liberal candidates’ social or political identity (Geraldine Ferraro, Ralph Nader, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren), past record (Vietnam veteran John Kerry’ anti-war activism), or platform (Howard Dean’s anti-war candidacy in 2004, Ralph Nader’s and Jill Stein’s green policies, Bernie Sanders’ economic populism). Each of these candidates experienced disrespectful treatment by the press including in some cases by important segments of the so-called liberal media.
The aggressive methods employed have generally been the same. The focus is on manipulating appearances and using aggressive timing:
· preemptive attack (the element of surprise is crucial in a media-saturated environment; creating a sensation or buzz is everything)
· extreme content (saying the unthinkable)
· guilt by association (however tenuous)
· stigmatizing one’s identity
· invidious interpretations of ambiguous statements or appearances
· taking statements out of context
· the most effective method is impugning a candidate’s character or motive (as opposed to questioning their record) because it is difficult to disprove in a cynical media environment and dominates the 24/7 news cycle before it can be stopped
· all the above are often done via passive-aggressive rumor-mongering (“I hear but don’t know…”; “Some people say…”; “Anonymous sources claim…”)
The point is to put the target in a defensive, reactive position with the ultimate goal of humiliating and dishonoring the target in the eyes of the public and of creating an impression of weakness, or of a potential weakness, one that may not manifest itself now but could at any time. In the current political theater of dominance this can be fatal. The sheer volume of lies and allegations ends up gaslighting the candidate, his or her supporters, and the general public alike. It constructs a wall of “common sense,” a negative frame that forever casts a shadow over the target’s every future statement and action. It reaches a point where no matter what the candidate says or does, she or he is perceived as, to cite past and present examples, “nasty,” “angry,” “rude,” a “screamer,” or even “violent.” The loss of control over one’s public image is irremediable. Such is the transformative power of this kind of verbal and psychological violence.
In this scenario and depending on one’s identity, one is always out of place and all too “present.” Just showing up can be perceived as “aggressive.” So the trap has been set, and, perversely, the potential for verbal or psychological violence has been transferred to the victim from the perpetrator. And as in any classic bullying scenario, should the victim respond and name the aggression for what it is, the bully answers, “Are you being hostile?” and then freely claims victimhood for her or himself.
I have written on this extensively beginning 10 years ago and again in my recent book on public bullying and political intimidation. Even Hillary Clinton, despite her deep ties with economic and political elites, wasn’t spared in 2016 any more than she was when she first entered the White House in January 1993 as an avowed feminist. Devoted as they were to speculative hearsay and cheap cynicism media reporting focused on the bogus Benghazi affair, her private email server, and her dysfunctional staff. In 2016 cable news organizations spent something less than 100 minutes on substantive discussion of her record and platform. The print media, including the New York Times were scarcely better.
The Politics of Destruction: Wolfpack Journalism
Let’s return to the present where my focus will be primarily on the case of Bernie Sanders.
Why so?
Because Sanders currently has been the object of disrespectful treatment by the media pretty much unmatched by any other candidate by virtue of his triple outsider status: in terms of his platform (anti-establishment economic populist), his record (progressive), and his identity (independent, longtime democratic-socialist and, less openly acknowledged in public discussions, secular Jew, who is also critical of current Israeli policies towards Palestinians)
Until the beginning of the year, mainstream media including CNN and MSNBC had ignored the Sanders campaign much in the way they did during the primaries in 2016 when media observers termed this non-reporting a media “blackout.” And at those times when they did turn their attention to him, it was almost always negative; the peak was reached by the Washington Post when in 2016 it ran sixteen negative stories in 16 hours according the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). This year with the first primaries he began to come into view but the coverage was uniformly negative. With his 26-point win in Nevada that made him front runner, there was an awkward, almost comical moment when some TV anchors treated him with a modicum of curiosity mixed with respect (it’s America after all: we admire winners) but it lasted perhaps no more than 48 hours.
Even before the grace period was up, panicked pundits and anchors felt free to engage in over the top slandering of Sanders: MSNBC’s Meet the Press anchor Chuck Todd read a rightwing blog posting characterizing Sanders supporters as the “brownshirt brigade,” which earned him a public protest from the Anti-Defamation League; Chris Matthews likened Sanders’ Nevada landslide victory to the Nazi conquest of France in 1940 and insinuated that he would be executed under a Sanders presidency (which, among surely other but unstated reasons, may have cost him his job); and Democratic political consultant James Carville, who had previously termed Sanders a “communist” and his supporters a “cult,” after the Nevada results were in declared,”the happiest person right now is Putin.” These all occurred on liberal MSNBC/NBC newscasts.
Such statements recall the worst days on Hillary Clinton’s first years in the White House (deemed to be the murderer of lawyer White House Vincent Foster who had committed suicide) and attacks not so long ago on Obama by Fox and other Murdoch media as not American and a “socialist” and their claims that the Affordable Care Act had plans to create “death camps.” However, perhaps just as serious has been the relentless piling on in print, cable, and social media against Bernie Sanders and his campaign that have gone beyond legitimate adversarial journalism to create an unremitting negative consensus. This what former Village Voice columnist Alexander Cockburn used to call “wolfpack journalism.” It has effectively erased Sanders’ exceptionally consistent record on issues that liberals and progressives and their organizations presumably hold dear: civil rights, war and peace, immigration reform, the criminal justice system, women’s issues, LGBTQ issues, healthcare, student debt, global warming, etc. Finally, on cable television, anchors and their guests now feel free to interrupt and talk over Sanders national campaign co-chair Nina Turner, and one Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen lectured Turner (who is Black) on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The Case of Elizabeth Warren
It is interesting to note that Elizabeth Warren has a similar progressive record and a strong populist, anti-Wall Street stance as policymaker and now as Senator and candidate. (This is why Sanders and activists associated with Occupy Wall St. had initially asked her to run in 2016; she turned them down.) In her case she has had to face the brunt of the reigning public misogyny hostile towards highly successful professional women, but it would appear that its expression has been more in the ballot box than in mainstream cable TV and print media. She hasn’t had to deal with quite the same level of active hostility from the so-called liberal news outlets as Sanders, though her healthcare and wealth tax proposals were not fairly considered in the press.
Warren has even enjoyed the endorsement of the editorial board of the New York Times and the active support of influential Nobelist economist and op-ed columnist Paul Krugman. This may have to do with her insider credentials as Harvard law professor and former Obama administration official that Sanders clearly does not possess. By contrast, and perhaps for in part for these very same reasons, Krugman has felt free to relentlessly mock Sanders’ socialist identity and Medicare for All and anti-free market proposals. Remarkably, he has been joined by New York Times op-ed writers from across the political spectrum (up to three a day): from Michelle Goldberg, Timothy Egan, Roger Cohen, and Nicholas D. Kristof to Gail Collins, Maureen Down, Tom Friedman, David Brooks, Ross Douthat, and Brett Stephens.
The differential treatment of the two progressive candidates by the mainstream liberal media was also made apparent in the lengthy interviews of Warren and Sanders conducted by MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow on March 4 and 5. There Sanders faced a set of leading questions from a smiling but hostile host narrowly focused on the disappointing results of Super Tuesday primaries that was capped off with a query about his age, gender, race, and sexual orientation status. By contrast, Warren was warmly greeted by Maddow and met with genuinely broad and stimulating questions concerning the unique nature and power of her campaign and what its legacy might be with a long segment devoted to the Bernie Bro phenomenon.
The Destructive Legacy of the Cold War Era
The New York Times op-ed writers’ consensus has been more than matched by the News Department that has published a drumbeat of news articles critical of Sanders and his followers. Rare is the in-depth feature that examines the reasons for his expanding, diverse base, his popularity among African American voters that surpassed Biden’s in nationwide polls prior to the South Carolina primary, his strength among working-class voters in the crucial upper Midwest, or his proven ability to attract moderate, centrist and even conservative rural voters in a less crowded field during the 2016 primaries. It would appear that the New York Times has a version of internal “wolfpack journalism” all its very own.
Thenegative reporting reached a high point on March 6 when the New York Times published a front-page article titled, “Soviet Papers Recount Ties with Sanders” and online, “As Bernie Sanders Pushed for Closer Ties, Soviet Union Spotted Opportunity” claiming his bid to form a sister-city relationship as mayor of Burlington, Vermont with Yaroslavl, Russia was a tool of Soviet propaganda. This earned the paper of record a sharp rebuke from Ronald Reagan’s former ambassador to the USSR for distorting history by omitting that this was actually in line with an official policy of the U.S. government and enjoyed its full support.
The days of pretending to keep in check misleading and slanderous reporting when a Public Editor like Margaret Sullivan was present are apparently gone. That position is now defunct. The liberties with which the Times News Department took with the historical record of Sanders’ visit speaks volumes about the current forbidding political environment in which we live. It is hard not to think that such high-handed reporting has been enabled by the revival old Cold War hysteria associated with the U.S.’s rivalry with the communist Soviet Union by the breathless press coverage over the last three years of Trump’s presumed conspiracy with Russian meddling in U.S. elections.
As a child of the Cold War and former participant in 1960s social movements, I’ve watched with apprehension how liberal pundits and Democrats have started wielding once again the same old cudgel that Republicans such as Joe McCarthy routinely applied to Democrats and liberals (for example, Dr. Martin Luther King and the labor and civil rights movements) in an attempt to dismantle the social and economic achievements of the New Deal. But I have to remind myself that already back in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s the same tactics were also applied by a good number of Democrats against progressives and the anti-Vietnam War and other social movements. Perhaps red-baiting of Bernie Sanders also shouldn’t have come as a surprise, since the recent media and political frenzy around Russiagate also seems to have re-empowered members of the Democratic leadership, journalists, and pundits who are obsessed with national security and take pride in their close relationships with the Pentagon and national intelligence and law enforcement agencies, government entities that have a record of surveilling, discrediting, and disrupting domestic progressive political movements.
The Power of Social Media
Finally, matters are made infinitely worse by online bullying, especially via tweets and anonymous postings whose destructive capacity to provoke and spread fear are quite real. Online aggression is all the more powerful in that while the toxic content is all too easy to interpret, it is another thing all together to measure its amplitude, reliably and quickly identify the perpetrators who hide behind tweeter handles, and make them accountable for their actions. As anxious users, swimming in the gaslit internet, we can always find what we fear and dread in the corners of the internet, but how to interpret what we encounter is no simple task. This task is all the more urgent as progressives and liberal grapple with reports from among their own ranks about aggressive “Bernie Bros” who have bullied followers of opponents, Warren supporters who have attacked indigenous critics of Warren’s testing for evidence of indigenous DNA, and followers of Buttigieg who sent abusive emails to Russian-American New Yorker writer Masha Gessen when she voiced mild criticism of their candidate. And then there’s always the threat of manipulation by provocateurs sowing division and divisiveness among the Democratic left to worry about.
Conclusion
Given the unique virulence and scope of public denigration of Bernie Sanders and his campaign, its goal would seem to want to destroy more than Sanders himself but preferably his entire movement, which, ultimately, in my view, is deemed to be the real threat by the Democratic Party establishment and its allies. For the deep commitments of Sanders’ followers exceed his single candidacy and are devoted as much to the issues they care about and to responding to the current political emergency as to his person. These millions of followers are something party leaders can’t reliably control, unlike — in their minds at least — other electoral groups they call “firewalls” whose votes they take have come to take for granted.
There is much more that can be said but I’ll close by saying that the current public derogatory treatment of Bernie Sanders by the media and many pundits associated with the Democratic establishment approaches that which Jeremy Corbyn received during the last parliamentary elections in the UK that helped destroy the Labor Party campaign. Following that script, the next turn of the screw may indeed be to accuse Bernie Sanders and his followers of being anti-Semites and Sanders as a self-hating Jew. This is already underway among Likud-identified Jewish organizations and press, and it may be not long before it migrates to the mainstream media and political worlds in the U.S.
Roddey Reid is Professor Emeritus, UC San Diego (rreid@ucsd.edu) and is author of Confronting Political Intimidation and Public Bullying: A Citizen’s Handbook for the Trump Era and Beyond.
Here are the concluding minutes of the interview. A dry, verbal excerpt from the full interview doesn't quite capture the flow of leading questions and Sander's responses and how Sanders's maintained a dignified posture throughout with a hostile host.
(Compare with Maddow's warm, sympathetic interview with Elizabeth Warren the following day.)
Should the Democratic establishment think nominating Bloomberg will not only defeat Trump but also help preserve its control over the party, Democratic leaders may be in for a nasty surprise. In their minds Bloomberg may be a stone that can kill two birds (Trump and Sanders) but Bloomberg’s actions are also those of a corporate raider engaged in a hostile take-over bid of a company faced with implacable competition (the GOP) and burdened with a sclerotic, inept management (the DNC) and falling stock price (after the failed attempt to remove Trump and the Iowa caucus fiasco), and over which frustrated employees (liberals and progressives) now wish to assume ownership.
Part Two of a two-part article on how the Democratic Party and its liberal and progressive allies should anticipate and counter rightwing political intimidation and violence. I argue that if ignored, such violence could threaten to undo the achievements of the Blue Wave and cause to founder the best efforts of Indivisible, Swing Left, and other new activist organizations to “pave the way to the post-Trump era” (Indivisible on Offense, p. 2).
Part Two reviews the challenges of dealing with the threat of rightwing domestic terrorism in the U.S. as a political problem and proposes possible responses to it as an existential threat to democratic institutions and progressive values.
First part of two-part article: 'Indivisible on Offense' and Galvanizing the Democratic Party in the Current Climate of Political Violence"
It is a response to the publication of Indivisible.org's new battle plan, "Indivisible on Offense: A Practical Guide to the New Democratic House."
Part 2 (due out next Monday): "Countering Acts of Political Violence & Domestic Terrorism"
"Today, in light of the electoral Blue Wave that caught most observers by surprise, and the release last week by Indivisible.org of its new activist guide (Indivisible on Offense: A Practical Guide to the New Democratic House), I want to offer several ideas about not only how to anticipate and counter political violence but also how over the next two years Democrats — and liberals and progressives generally — should confront Republican acts of intimidation.
"I want to argue that confronting the aggressive tactics of such remorseless opponents will require a transformation of the Democratic Party in terms of its self-image, public postures, and overall approach to political conflict in governmental institutions and the public media. As a Hungarian colleague, who has watched apprehensively as the U.S. has edged closer to the kind of legal authoritarianism or illiberal democracy already in place in his home country, put it, thanks to the Blue Wave, 'Democracy in America is now back on life support.'
"But absent changes in Democratic politics and a strategy for countering political intimidation and violence, the best efforts of Indivisible and other new activist organizations to “pave the way to the post-Trump era” (Indivisible on Offense, p. 2) may well founder."
Author’s Note: Just as I was finishing this essay, the mass shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh occurred, one of the most violent anti-Semitic acts in modern American history.
In Plain Sight
As federal and local law enforcement agencies pursue their investigation of the multiple pipe-bombing attempts targeting Democratic politicians and Donald Trump’s critics, the horror of this act of domestic political terrorism shouldn’t make us forget that we have been here before and that the current crisis is one in a long series of threats and actual acts of physical violence going back many years. Politicians, the mainstream news outlets, and pundits are struggling to come to grips with the gravity of the situation and the necessity of developing concrete counterstrategies but the evidence that this exact scenario was in the offing has been in plain sight for some time.
References have begun to crop up in social media to the over 40 bombings of abortion clinics in the U.S. as well as to deadly LGBTQT bashings but apparently absent from public memory is the call to armed insurrection issued by Fox News host Glenn Beck and CNN’s Lou Dobbs right after Barack Obama’s January 2009 inauguration, for which they paid no penalty.
Harvey Weinstein is at the top of not just one list but two: that of sexual harassers and aggressors but also another one of abusive, tyrannical CEOs.
Both Harvey and his brother Bob belonged to various lists of America’s toughest bosses publicized by a largely admiring business press including Fortune and Business Week starting in 1980. Journalists and editors underscored their tyrannical and abusive management styles and praised their willingness to make "hard" decisions, such as downsizing middle management, cutting wages, and ordering massive layoffs during the heady days of the go-go 1980s and 1990s of corporate raiders, leveraged-buyouts (LBOs), and company mergers.
Articles included the names of Steve Jobs (NeXT Computing), Donald Rumsfeld (G.D. Searle Pharmaceuticals), Carl Icahn (TWA), Andrew Grove (Intel), and Jack Welch (General Electric). Many of those names are still with us--and so is their management style.
Author’s Note: this is the second installment in a four-part series on the current public climate of fear and intimidation that since the kick-off of the last presidential campaign in 2015 has dominated national life in the United States to a degree not seen in a long while. In Part One, “The Emotional Toll of Public Bullying and Political Intimidation,” the focus was on the experience of the sheer power and psychological effects of bullying in general and public bullying and political intimidation in particular. Below in Part Two, I now look at how public bullying works as a concrete method and set of political tools: I examine specific devices and tactics that will provide readers something of a practical guide through this potent minefield and a way to anticipate future acts of aggression. As we approach the midterm elections, the hope is to provide readers with some protective mental armor against the daily barrage of assaults.
In the wake of the tumultuous Kavanaugh hearings marked by wrenching accusations of sexual assault and extreme examples of political bullying, in Part Three I focus on the two major political parties to explore why over the years Republicans and their right-wing supporters have freely resorted to extremely aggressive political tactics and — just as important — why Democratic Party leaders and their liberal allies have often failed to take seriously such acts of political violence and skullduggery by their opponents and respond accordingly. Part of the answer, I argue, lies in their respective practices of loyalty and identity, social composition, and conceptions of governing.
-
Why does political bullying take such an emotional toll on citizens and residents?
-
How do political intimidation and public bullying work in a “post-truth” era?
-
How is the current harsh public climate a challenge to those involved in civic action or political activity?
-
How can we overcome it?
Author’s Note: this is the first installment in a series on the current public climate of fear and intimidation that since the kick-off of the last presidential campaign in 2015 has dominated national life in the United States. In particular I look at how this toxic environment has poisoned our politics and even reached into our very relationships with friends, co-workers, neighbors, and family members. Next up is Part Two: “How the Public Climate of Fear and Intimidation Works.”
Excerpt:
“We think we know who they are: they cut you off on the highway, they taunt you to your face, mock you behind your back, smirk at you from the TV screen, standing always beyond reach. They are everywhere and anywhere, from the schoolyard to the boardroom, the office cubicle to your local bar. They come unbidden, visiting violence upon the unsuspecting and the fearful alike. They now lurk even in your pocket wherever you go, and you can feel the buzz as trolls spew 140-character poison to anyone and everyone. Even at home you can’t get away from the pervasive climate of intimidation and disrespect: you turn on your TV or laptop and there they are, injecting venom and fear through old and new media. Requiring little or no provocation, they are poised to strike at the first sign of weakness — or courage. For they tolerate no one, no one but their own kind — belligerent bullies ready to declare who is fit to speak, to listen, and to submit.”
SUMMARY
-
intimidation as a political and theoretical problem
-
traumatic lessons
-
taking political violence seriously
-
political intimidation vs. everyday bullying
-
from political tool to an entire political program & form of governing
-
how it works
-
affective challenges to civic action and activism
-
resistance: a nimble politics of anticipation
-
creating our own affective facts on the ground
THEORETICAL FRAME
My thinking has been in conversation with the work of Étienne Balibar on citizenship, globalization, extreme violence and the State, Wendy Brown’s deep inquiry into the political project of neoliberalism of “dedemocratization,” Judith Butler’s and Brian Massumi’s respective writings on lawless sovereignty, indefinite detention, and the affective politics of preemption in the endless War on Terror, and Corey Robin’s book on fear as an operative concept in the liberal political tradition.