The paper is certainly worthy of criticism. This recent piece
from The Intercept exposes once again its establishment bias.
The Times is not a 'liberal' paper per se. It is probably
more correct to refer to it as the newspaper of record viz. the Establishment
mouthpiece. That label is usually meant to be a point of pride or endorsement.
It is most certainly nothing of the kind.
And I can also assure these fine pastors the Establishment
does not quite meet the definitions of liberal. Perhaps when it comes to
certain economic issues the Establishment may represent viewpoints that the Far
Right considers to be liberal, but they are in fact mistaken in their classification,
not understanding the nature of the system they promote and its eventual and
quite necessary elevation/evolution to Corporatism.
The Establishment might not echo or parallel the social
agenda of the Christian Right either, but I still would argue that doesn't make
them liberal. The terms themselves sort of break down at this point. The
Establishment might be 'progressive' on certain issues, believing that society
needs to change with certain trends. In another sense it is the Evangelical
Right that is trying to shift well established societal norms.
But these are in reality peripheral issues.
The Times is dedicated to preserving the Establishment order,
the reigning system and architectonic apparatus that is the American Empire. In
some respects, at least on a macro level, that's about as conservative as you
can get.
I often hear its reporting mocked as if it's sub-par. It's
nothing of the kind. While the governing assumptions must be questioned as we indeed
must question the arguments of any unbeliever, the overall quality of the
journalism is decent. It's simply limited in its scope by its adherence to the
paradigm. On some issues it will be excellent, on others good but reductionist
and finally and some wholly biased even deceptive.
If I can add an element of confusion to the mix, there are
journalists within the framework that question the system. As the already
fading Snowden episode demonstrates those types of reporters tend to move on.
The Times and organisations like it end up frustrating them.
And it must also be added that there are real dissensions and
disagreements within the ruling apparatus. They all operate under the same
assumptions within the same Establishment Circle... but within that framework
they can have sharp disagreements in how to get from point A to point B.
It may surprise this pastoral roundtable to discover that
those on the actual 'extreme left' actually snort at the New York Times. They
might (like me) read it from time to time. I'm always happy to pick up a copy
and nurse a cup of coffee while I peruse it. But they will by no means consider
it to be an ally. I read it in the same sense that I would the Wall Street
Journal, though to be honest I think the Times is superior.
The Times has been pretty vicious with Hilary Clinton. A lot
of people on the left were shocked at the overt bias against her.
Of course the real left doesn't view the Clintons as allies
or even fellow-travelers. From the standpoint of the left, the Clintons are
something closer to Center-Right.
When it comes to foreign policy and commentary the Times like
virtually all US media outlets including 'liberal' NPR follows the
Establishment line. You cannot get good foreign affairs coverage from any
mainstream American media outlet. That said, as bad as the Times is on this
point, it's still miles ahead of the mainstream television channels and most
periodicals.
Liberals are often less than pleased with the Times coverage
of the Israeli-Palestinian issue...
Let alone the Syria coverage.
Finally with regard to Sanders, many partakers of
Establishment media would be surprised to learn that he's not greatly
appreciated by the far left let alone by actual 'Socialists'.
Whether they're right or wrong in this assessment it's
already clear Sanders is not really all he purports to be and his campaign
increasingly reminds one of Obama in 2008. There's a lot of talk and big ideas
that channel popular energies but there seems (at times) a reticence to
elaborate on just how he would pursue these policies and effect these changes.
In addition there's also hesitation when it comes to truly dismantling the governing
apparatus. In that sense his campaign is very reminiscent of Obama.
I personally don't think it's possible. He would be destroyed
before he got past the first step or two. I think president-elect Obama in
November-December 2008 had already capitulated. Whether he was scared,
intimidated, bought or simply railroaded it's hard to say. Maybe that will come
out in time. But it's clear he quickly abandoned the principles he put forward
during the campaign and over the course of his tenure has continued to move to
the right. He's increased American militarism. Don't listen even for a moment
to the rhetoric being belched forth by the GOP candidates. They are
deliberately misleading their audiences and I have to believe they know it. His
economic policies have benefited the corporate system. Contrary to popular
perception he really did almost nothing in terms of homosexual marriage. That
ball was already rolling and was largely outside his court.
Though it's not proper to refer to him as a lame-duck until
after this November... I've noticed many media outlets making this error. That
said, in many ways he's been a lame duck since 2010. Due to gridlock there's
not much he can do. His presidency in some ways reminiscent of Carter's failed
term demonstrates the office is actually quite limited in power. He can snap
his fingers and drop bombs, initiate commando raids etc... The Unitary
Executive in extending the 'war' to almost every aspect of society grants him
certain powers but in many other ways he's completely shackled.
If Sanders actually won the election he would be neutralised.
Whether that's through bureaucratic obstruction or something else his agenda
would not be implemented.
Finally with regard to the media the most interesting thing
with regard to Trump is that he's taken the 'Teflon' label to a new level. It's
absolutely unbelievable. He simply dismisses any challenge to his narrative,
any exposure or inconsistency or prevarication. He just ignores it and marches
on. Listening to coverage of a Cruz rally this morning I didn't know whether to
laugh or cry as I'm listening to the crowd cheering and duck-calling one of the
buffoons from the Duck Dynasty reality-TV programme who was there to endorse
the Canadian Cruz. Of course many of these folks are professing Christians. And
as the Duck people, Palin and many others, they're just making merchandise of
the apostate Church and laughing all the way to the bank... and hell in the
end.
But that's where things are at. The electorate and the
Christian populace have been reduced to such utter stupidity and ignorance that
they will support people like Trump and Palin. It's judgment and God-sent
delusion. Palin in addition to being incapable of speaking coherently needs her
mouth washed out. Such filth would have been unthinkable a generation ago.
She's a vile creature to be sure and a disgrace of a wife and mother but the
fact (once again) that the Church seems to support her says a lot more about
them than her. She's just in it for the money.
Is the Almighty intending to bring down this Babylon? Undoubtedly
it will fall in the end. Is it going to happen sooner rather than later? It may
very well be the case. Even after Nero and Commodus, Rome marched on for many
generations. Today things tend to 'come together' a little faster so the same delayed
result isn't likely.
But, it may be that a hundred years from now historians will
be looking at these years as something of a turning point in the decline and
fall of the American Empire.
No one knows what will happen if Trump takes over. In some
ways he's not as 'extreme' as many would believe. That could be argued
extensively. Even his rhetoric is sometimes little more than a faux paus, a vocalisation of viewpoints
and attitudes many hold but you're not supposed to say out loud in polite
society. But he is a train wreck to be sure and 90% of what he proposes will be
obstructed, entangled and fail.
I think he in his arrogance would try to work around the law
and he would likely foment a constitutional crisis as the Establishment would
seek his removal. That might lead to more Ammon Bundy episodes and spark a lot
of trouble.
I think where he's scary is in the realm of foreign policy.
By no means do I wish the Establishment to continue its wicked deeds and
warmongering but Trump would likely pour gasoline on smoldering fires and do
something truly reckless. That said there are those in the Establishment that
would love nothing more. Blood feeds the
war machine as it eats its way across the land. That's an all too true
lyric I remember from my pagan days. Trump might take a page from Nixon's
'Madman' approach to some of these tensions. He certainly fits the bill.
His rhetoric, demeanour and policies are reminiscent not so
much of Hitler but of Mussolini. Of course initially Mussolini was praised by
many American corporate leaders and figures such as the racist Winston
Churchill. His 'moral compass' wasn't always so finely tuned despite the myths
perpetuated by his Anglo-American cult.
If Trump had some thugs that were instigating violence on the
streets and beating up his detractors then we would be repeating the episode.
We're not quite there but there are definitely echoes and it's not too hard to
imagine the scenario coming to pass.
It's no surprise (at all) that the Christian Right, figures
like Falwell Jr. and Palin are supporting this. It actually makes perfect
sense. Their 'worldview' teaching has proven to be little more than
self-confirming propaganda and has sacralised a false narrative. They have
proven time and time again that they don't understand history and most
certainly the events surrounding World War II. It's often the case that what
they think they are against is in fact what they are wholeheartedly supporting.
