The Four Recent Losses in Journalism and Why It Matters

If there were ever a time to write about journalism, this is it. Four of the most respected journalists in the biz are either gone or in the process of leaving-- and all are exiting on top or while falling down.
The recent losses of journalistic leaders has caused me to look back at the steps that led me to become fascinated with the adventure, the curiosity, the writing, and the intellectual challenges of both the people and ideology that make up the journalism profession.

When I was a kid I looked up to two types of people who I thought were the apotheoses of human achievement: astronauts and professional athletes. This made sense to me, since both were easily understandable to a kid who might not have full reasoning powers, but can comprehend both adventure and the easily graspable idea of winning and losing.

Beginning in in my late teenage years throughout my 20s, that focus shifted a with a sharp sense of urgency to musicians. I began asking myself, "What's the use of working towards self-realization if you aren't able to actively participate in the beauty of the creative process--such as music?" And with that I just fell head over heels in love with bluegrass and was determined to become an active member of that art form.

But now, as I get through my 30s, there's been another question that has replaced that one: "How do you fully participate in human creativity if you don't actively try to understand the complexities of the world and people around you?" The great writers, thinkers, and creative class who have had such a major impact on our culture typically have a knack for understanding the complex layers of the individual, society, and culture. Dylan, Guthrie, Twain, and currently even Jon Stewart all immersed themselves into American culture and the plight of the lower and middle class working people. All of these men were dedicated to using both experience and interactions to tell the beautiful and heartbreaking stories of the American people.

Written word, spoken word, satire, and music all have the power to bring change. Journalists might not have the same enduring legacy as authors and musicians, but they still play a significant part in all the major cultural shifts; many have been killed as testimony to that.




Musicians, writers, and journalists all tell existential stories about human nature, just in different formats. Woody Guthrie, Bob Dylan, investigative reporters such as Taibbi, Hersh and Woodward, and satirists such as Twain and Stewart have all effectively brought more cultural and social shift to this country for the under-represented than most politicians.


Of all the hits that we've seen, Brian Williams is the messiest and most complicated. We've seen the most-watched news anchor of our current time possibly lose his job over a story that had nothing to do with the news. What it does concern are the ethical implications of a public who wants our public figures, politicians, and news anchors to also be entertainment celebrities. Williams walked that line better than anyone, but when it came time to creatively embellish stories, as every one of us does, the online punditry and twittersphere smelled blood and came in for the kill.

There was something that bothered me about this whole deal. Mostly because it was not necessarily about some newfound national desire for absolute "truth" in the media. Not when Fox News tells the truth a reported 18% of the time and is the #1 cable news outlet. No, there was something else going on and I think it was our bloodthirsty appetite to see a good man get torn down.

I saw very few people concerned about the trust that Williams had broken as the "Lyin' Brian" memes caught fire. There was much more of an engaged bloodsport spectacle of people feeling like they get to be a part of this action, like a crowd gathering at the gallows all clamoring to help pull the lever. If bringing a bad person down feels good, bringing a good one down is even better.

Jon Ronson wrote about the spectacle of public shaming in the New York Times:

"As time passed, though, I watched these shame campaigns multiply, to the point that they targeted not just powerful institutions and public figures but really anyone perceived to have done something offensive. I also began to marvel at the disconnect between the severity of the crime and the gleeful savagery of the punishment. It almost felt as if shamings were now happening for their own sake, as if they were following a script."

Ronson followed several people who had been publicly torn down over offensive tweets, one of which was a young PR girl, Justine Sacco, where he describes the snowballing energy that drives our desire to participate as a virtual group in actions we would not do alone.

"But perhaps she had now come to understand that her shaming wasn’t really about her at all. Social media is so perfectly designed to manipulate our desire for approval, and that is what led to her undoing. Her tormentors were instantly congratulated as they took Sacco down, bit by bit, and so they continued to do so. Their motivation was much the same as Sacco’s own — a bid for the attention of strangers."

While that level of accountability is required for investigative journalists to keep massive institutions in check, it is not required by the public for our news sources-- remember that Fox News is the #1 cable news program--and that is ultimately why the national outrage over the Williams story did not feel either genuine or equal to the crime.

Just a few shades over in the industry, where a single embellishment or mistake can ruin a career, we have the great investigative journalists of our time, Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone. In a testament to fastidiousness, he had trouble getting the RS fact checkers to sign off on one of his most famous lines, where he described the investment bank Goldman Sachs and its role in the financial crisis:

“The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”



Taibbi: "I remember is the fact checkers coming to me at one point and they almost killed the line because squids don’t have blood funnels. I was trying to explain that was part of what made it funny, but they were very insistent. I had to go over their heads on that one."

Such scrutiny is required for investigative pieces because one factual error can wreck the entire work. If Goldman Sachs can find one substantiated error, falsehood, or lie then that's all they need to cast doubt on the entire article. Taibbi and RS know this (which makes the UVA rape article both out of character and somewhat unforgivable) so they task their fact checkers to go over every single sentence. That is why one writer is able to take on what is arguably the most powerful corporation in the world with both truth and substance.

On the other side, we have two of the most respected journalists of our time, Bob Simon and David Carr, suddenly pass away; while it might not feel like much to most people, these two were giants in the industry.

Much like with Stewart, you did not want to be caught in David Carr's crosshairs. While one was based around comedy and satire, the other was soberingly serious; but both raised the bar for media practices through their hard work and most importantly, intellectual honesty. The ire of either of these two meant you were caught either being lazy, or worse, dishonest, and in today's profit driven twitter speed news cycles we need more of these watchdogs, not less. Here's a great interview Carr did with Terry Gross on her show "Fresh Air".

Jon Stewart has had such an effect on news media that just his announcement of his impending departure sent the internet into such a frenzy of remorse posts that he opened the following day's show by asking, "Ummm....did I die yesterday?" Satirist, comedian, watchdog, voted "most trusted news-person"--I don't think anyone has been able to properly describe the impact Stewart has had on our current media landscape. Many have tried, and you can pull up countless posts that all do a great job of discussing various effects.

We love the arts for so many reasons, one of which is they give us a deeper insight into the human condition and experience. But strip away the smoke and mirrors of entertainment and we have a class of people who overflow with curiosity and bravery, and are able to understand the hugeness of the world and bring it to our doorstep. The older I get, the more I've begun to appreciate both the ability to do this as well as the western philosophy of freedom of speech that allows it. Criticism and cynicism aside, David Carr was adamant that the golden age of journalism is not necessarily behind us.

--Brian Paul Swenk

If you like the posts, please share and sign up for emails on the left.

Keep up with me here:
Facebook
Twitter

Why Grateful Dead Chose Trey Anastasio

This week the remaining members of the Grateful Dead announced what could be their final farewell shows. The announcement had two surprises: the length, or lack thereof, of the 3 day run and the addition of Phish guitar player Trey Anastasio filling in for Jerry. Most of the rumors circulating around the Deadhead circuit were based around the notion of having a revolving cast of players who've filled those shoes for the last couple decades: Warren Haynes, Jimmy Herring, Steve Kimock, and John Kadlecik. But instead they chose one, and he happens to be the leader and the voice  of that other jam band.

In the days to come, I expect to start seeing some Trey backlash coalescing and becoming more vocal. The backlash will be visceral by nature, and more interestingly will peel back the layers of how we personally identify with art. Art does not exist without a personal connection. Personal connections do not exist without our emotions and expectations--fair or not. These personal connections make up part of our personal identity. So for many people, on a deep level, choosing Trey to play Jerry's guitar parts disrupts many decades of personal identity. As this becomes clearer to Deadheads, we can expect to see the emotional recognition and reactions vocalized.

The great disconnect between artists and fans is that decisions such as these --which musicians are best suited to play with a band-- are not made with these emotional connections in mind. Great artists have a completely different relationship with their art, and in many cases, they aren't able to even understand how some people connect with their art.

The different perspectives on this particular art--the music of the Grateful Dead--is why the remaining musicians chose Trey, while many, and maybe even most, of the old-school deadheads would have chosen someone else--someone without the Phish sound, baggage, and personality.  For the musicians making this choice it all comes down to one single thing, and read this slowly:

The notes that come out of the instrument.

That's it. That is the alpha and omega of that decision-making process. It is not about the scene, the personality, or the history. It is purely the fact that the notes that come out of Trey's guitar are better than anyone else's! These guys believe that music comes from the universe, and a great musician is a conduit that has found the ability to tap into it. Carlos Santana has said, "I was picturing the audience as this sea of flowers, the music was the water, and you guys were the hose." The remaining members chose the guitarist that can tap into that idea more naturally and creatively than anyone else. Period!

You can argue that statement if you want, but your argument is based on the feeling that you don't have the personal connection to those notes as you do to someone else's, mainly Jerry's (not to mention you are telling your musical heroes that they are wrong). Those personal connections are what drives our love of music, but to understand how musicians connect to their music you have to lose that bias for a moment.

I don't think any world-famous rock and roll band has been more dedicated and true to the actual music than the Grateful Dead, and again, I'm talking about the notes that come out of the instrument. Rock and roll has always walked such a fine line between style or music as the driving force. Where some bands would be nothing without their style, (i.e. KISS and hair-bands) the GD, through the de-facto leadership of Jerry, showed us what can happen if you concentrate solely on the music. Their love of American folk, jazz, big band, classical, and even tribal rhythms, combined with a sheer inexhaustible force of experimentation were always the driving force (drug addictions aside) for the Dead. That's how they formed and ran for decades, so do you really expect them to put all that aside because a guitar player comes with cult of personality baggage?

No, the remaining members don't give a shit about that. They picked a guy they feel has the most direct line to the musical source they believe in. The guy that can tap into the same place they tapped into in the 60's as they found their sound. Bob Weir notes, "Trey's well-schooled in the style of music we play--listening intently to what's going on and reacting meaningfully to what other people are playing. If there's a key shift or modality shift within a given section, (he) can hear that and relate, as I say, meaningfully."

Our connection to art will always be personal, and it will always show our biases, experiences, and emotions. There will be many who will be furious they chose Trey. There will be many who will boycott the whole deal because of Trey. And all that is fine. But if you understand how they approach their music, then you can see that they made a great and logical choice. These shows will be creative and push musical boundaries, just the way Jerry would want it.

All that being said, this is the funniest video you will see about this whole deal. This is amazing:

--Brian Paul Swenk

If you like the posts, please share and sign up for emails on the left.

Keep up with me here:
Facebook
Twitter

Final thoughts on the Serial podcast

**Spoiler Alert**  You probably don't want to read this if you haven't finished the show yet.  

The final episode of Serial just posted, and the ending was what most of us, deep down, have been expecting for a while now--inconclusive. I'm sure that many in the blog and twitterspheres will bemoan that the huge buildup did not satisfy our internal OCD nature to put everything neatly in its place; yes, there is a point to be made there, but there's much more to it.

For several weeks, I've been thinking about why this story, this particular podcast, has exploded through the country and even the world (as I wrote about here). Complicated murder mysteries are as old as western fiction, so there's nothing new there, and the idea of listening to podcasts barely existed out of the technocrat/NPR world. So what was it about this show that culminated in a national experience of waiting for new shows to be posted on Thursday mornings and then discussed, dissected, and theorized?

Let's go back in time for a second: do you remember the movie Adaptation? You know, it was the one where Nicholas Cage was actually really, really good! One of the plot twists was that a struggling screenwriter was unable to make his story work until he wrote himself into it. That has been on my mind lately as I listen to Koenig and her partners move this murder case along. The appeal of this story is not so much the possibility of discovering a truth, but instead, it is Koenig's and ultimately our own connection to the case.

The underlying force and fascination with this story is the confusion, frustration, flip-flopping, and passion of the storyteller. If Koenig did not write herself into this story, Adaptation style, then it would have only been an interesting and currently unsolvable case, and we have thousands of those to choose from. Hell, we have dozens of TV shows about real, unsolvable cases to choose from.

This story has caught fire throughout the world for reasons that any up-to-date low level marketing executive can explain: in the millennial-led world of digital mediums, we expect to be active participants in whatever our attention turns to. And while we are not actively moving this particular story, we are active by proxy. That connection is made possible through the emotional honesty that Koenig delivers throughout the series. From moments of doubt to the very human moments of distraction, such as "There's a shrimp sale at the Crab Crib."

If there were any doubts about Koenig’s ability to masterfully craft a story, and there weren't, this final episode should erase them. The fact that she was not able to uncover the facts to solve the case does not, and should not, ultimately matter. We all jumped onto this story knowing good and well that was a possibility, since we followed their investigation in real time. No one will accuse the crew of not exhausting every lead and possibility. What should be important is how she took a very difficult situation with no definite ending and was able to wrap up this series in the same compelling way in which it started. I tried to imagine how I would put together the final episode with the information at hand, and I wouldn't even know where to start. In my hands, it would have been on par with the disappointment of opening Al Capone's vault.

Thoughts on the final episode and overall case

The other half of the emotional connection that has driven the popularity of this show is everyone's desire for Adnan to be innocent. The further we traveled down the road, the more we believed there would be an "ah-ha" moment of clarity. Koenig mostly tried to remain undecided and objective, but you could still hear the desire for Adnan’s innocence in her voice. She liked him and was cheering for him. So were we, right? Yet the back and forth does not let up, even at the very end, when she admits the possibility of him doing it is just as realistic as any other crazy possibility out there.

The final episode could have been titled “Everyone is lying.”

What was left unsaid that I believe we are all thinking is that Jay’s story is much more fabricated than the small lies he’s caught in. A possible key to this case is who Jay thought was in the van the night he was working at the video store. Jay was obviously scared of whoever killed Hae. He was so scared that there's a real possibility that he would rather lie to convict Adnan than turn over the real killers. I have a hunch that the 3rd party theory ran strong with Koenig and her crew, but they did not have enough facts to back it up and therefore express it on the show.

The other part that was left unsaid and will be a popular criticism is that we probably just spent 3 months listening to a story that didn't even happen. Just like on live TV (which hardly exists anymore) this was the chance we all agreed to take. There's a real possibility that both Jay and Adnan are lying and that most of the story Koenig learned never actually happened.

So instead of concluding the show by successfully identifying who is telling the truth, we ended with an examination of the nature of truth. In the beginning, we all expected to just dig in and find out which of the two stories makes sense and who is lying--a classic Law and Order style wrap-up. But as This American Life has continually shown us through the years, life is messier than that. The truth is not always found in hours of interrogation, by using our gut instinct, or by just applying what we know to be true. Sometimes half-truths are murkier than outright lies. Sometimes ultimate truth will never be found, no matter how hard you look.

But I believe one truth was found in this journey--the power of a great journalist and storyteller to tell a radio-style story is still alive and well in this multimedia world, and this journey was well worth the time.

--Brian Paul Swenk

If you like these posts, please share and sign up for emails on the left.

Keep up with me here:
Facebook
Twitter

The Year of the Podcast: Why Serial is the Elvis of Podcasts.

2014 could be "The Year of the Podcast."

It does seem that the term has been around for a very long time (actually it's just 10 years old), but this year was the first time we've seen a "podcast" grow out of the niche techie world into the mass media zeitgeist.  The moment that the bugle call announcer of all things popular, Rolling Stone, gave the freshman podcast Serial a full, color page in its magazine, I knew these little intellectual nuggets would no longer exist solely within their underground aural strata.

For the last decade, podcasts have existed for their own niche markets, each catering to a specific, and often specialized crowd. Cooking, religion, fitness, sports--you could make a podcast on anything, do it inexpensively, and if you produced good content you could gather several thousand faithful listeners.

While some shows grew to over a million listeners, such as the always compelling NPR based "This American Life," there was no single podcast that connected huge swaths of the country together in a shared experience until Serial. Serial is the Elvis Presley of podcasting.

Serial reopens the case of the murder of a 17 year old girl in Baltimore Co in 1999, for which her ex-boyfriend is serving a life sentence for and has always maintained his innocence. The podcast is released weekly.

Whereas most shows are produced for specific target markets, this one connects everyone with a real story, told in real-time discovery, by an impassioned Sarah Koenig. But most impressively, it has developed an audience of listeners who have never listened to a podcast before. This American Life took 4 years to reach a million listeners; Serial did it in 6 episodes. High school teachers across the country are adjusting lesson plans to include Serial, in one case even replacing Shakespeare's "Hamlet." (English snobs may be revolted by this idea, but imagine the teacher's happiness with just finding something teenagers will actually engage with. It's hard to blame them.)

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, Serial is the fastest podcast to reach 5 million downloads in iTunes history, and is the top podcast in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and Australia, and in the top 10 in Germany, South Africa, and India.

Sara Koenig surrounded by Serial producers

Serial is serious, addictive, sobering, revelatory, and keeps you guessing throughout. It's a classic whodunit crime drama that unfolds with every answer leading to another question, which Koenig and her crew exhaustively and honestly chase down. But most importantly, it's a true story, and I think that's where a lot of the magic of podcasts lies. There is something both refreshing and captivating about combining the idea of the turn of the century old time radio shows with true, American stories, that can and do happen in our hometowns. There's a power in just hearing a voice tell a great story and comparisons to the golden age of radio are justified.

The reason I love particular podcasts so much is they are both a bastion of independent journalism and an efficient communication tool for smart, passionate people. Sending your voice to millions of listeners has never been this easy and cheap, so there is an inherent freedom for journalists to dig deep into stories without the over-the-top commercial pressures of other mediums. These people are driven by their passion and insatiable curiosity, which is more than worth the once a year fundraising or minute long sponsor recognition at the end of the shows. Cheap does not mean free.

If Serial opens the door to millions of people harkening the golden age of radio, then here are a few "must listen" podcasts.  (If you're confused on how podcasts work, here's a how-to link.)

While many of the most popular podcasts are NPR shows that serve both mediums, there is one pure podcast that also has an impressive buzz around it: Dan Carlin's Hardcore History

Carlin's fresh take on history and masterful storytelling rise above almost everything in the podcast world. The stories are anywhere between 2 and 15 hours long, which seems daunting at first, but once you're into them it feels more like binge-watching your favorite TV show than a history lesson. Again, it's the passion that drives the success of the show, which was recently recognized as the best classic podcast on iTunes. Load one on your device before leaving on a long drive and the hours will fly by as he explains how the red scares of the U.S. in 1920 and the 1950's are descendent of the French Revolution, or using the ideas of Planet of the Apes and biker gangs to describe the beginning of the so-called "Dark Ages." I've only listened to 2 shows, but I'm hooked.

My two other favorites are the aforementioned This American Life and Radio Lab. Similarly using the format of taking an idea and digging deep to see where it takes them, both are also driven by the unique and sincere personalities of the hosts. Each episode is about an hour long and each show is a compact nugget of intellectual curiosity that can range from funny, intriguing, amazing, and compelling. You never know what you'll get, and be warned, especially in This American Life, the show that doesn't sound interesting in the description can be unexpectedly heart-wrenching.

We have the ability to surround ourselves with music on a near-constant basis, which is both nice and exhausting. Personally, I've started making long drives with these great stories, and the hours fly by for me. If you've never tried a podcast, just go into iTunes and explore the options. Let me know if you find one that you love.

--Brian Paul Swenk

If you like the posts, please share and sign up for emails on the left.

Keep up with me here:
Facebook
Twitter

Why do good people vote for bad ideas? Emotion

There is still one piece of the recent election results that puzzles me, but first let me say this isn't so much a political piece, but a psychological piece. I'm fascinated by what makes people tick, what motivates them, what they believe and why, and, more specifically, why people who are presented with overwhelming evidence act against their interests. Even more specifically, why do good, smart people vote for bad candidates with horrible ideas?

As a society who wants to move forward we need to figure this shit out.

We all have friends who are somewhat or very conservative, and just like any other personality trait, it just makes them who they are. They aren't blinded by religion, hate, racism, or a "nation of idiots" as the comedian Andy Borowitz joked after the election this month, even though a small vocal minority can make it seem that way. (I really do believe the bile posted on social media is the exception and not the majority; maybe I'm naive or underestimating the Fox News brainwashing power, but I know many conservatives who are great people.)

People who have the conservative personality trait are usually hard-working, honest, smart, and driven. (Think of your friends, neighbors, and co-workers here, not FB trolls.) So my question is how can they allow such a ridiculous set of people (Palin, Cruz, McConnell, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc.) with really bad ideas (trickle down economics, climate change denial, overt racism and bigotry, etc.) lead the party?

In other words, how has the GOP turned into a party where knowledge and thought are a weakness and blindly consuming Fox News falsehoods and narratives is virtuous?

The day after the election I read something by The Rude Pundit that stuck with me:

"Here's everything you need to know about the 2014 midterms in a single anecdote: Last week, as he's mentioned, the Rude Pundit convinced the Rude Brother to vote for the Democrat, Mary Landrieu, in the Louisiana Senate race. The Rude Brother has long been Republican, but he is also for raising taxes on the wealthy, doesn't care about gay marriage, thinks abortion should be safe and legal, and agrees that humans contribute to climate change, among other beliefs. By just about any measure of politics, the Rude Brother is moderate-left, a Democrat. When the conversation ended, RB had said he would vote for Landrieu.

"Cut to Election Day morning. The Rude Pundit received a text from RB: "And, in the end, the kid couldn't pull the trigger for Mary." A little later, he got another message: "It felt dirty voting for Landrieu." RB went with Bill Cassidy, the Republican, who believes the opposite of everything RB believes in. In fact, Bill Cassidy will try to take health insurance away from our Rude Sister and her family. RB had said he has no problems with Obamacare. Well, he does now.

"There you have election 2014. A voter goes into the booth believing the world should be a certain way and then pushes the buttons for the candidates who will do everything they can to stop the world from being that way." --The Rude Pundit 11/5/2010

So, we have a country who voted progressive on almost all the ballot initiatives presented--gun control, personhood amendments, gay marriage, marijuana tolerance, minimum wage hikes--yet voted in the very Republicans who vow to act against them. One of the bigger "What the fuck?" political moments of our time, right?

The great question is "Why?!"

If we're going to move forward and not be held hostage by insane tea-party candidates with backwards ideas, we really have to figure this out.

We know from the great Jonathan Haidt why people vote either left or right. His book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" was groundbreaking in the field of moral psychology by explaining how our brains are hard-wired to influence our world perceptions and therefore dictate how we operate politically. (If you're interested in moral psychology then this book is a must read.) Here's a Ted Talk with him presenting his research if you're interested.

But it still doesn't explain the Rude Pundit's brother, who agrees with progressive principles but "feels dirty" voting for progressives.

It doesn't explain how a country of smart, hard-working people can look to a party where Sarah Palin is seen as a rockstar or where a lady who literally ran a campaign based upon hog castration is able to win. Nor does it explain how a state such as Kansas, whose economy has been so decimated by conservative trickle-down economics that leading state GOP voices crossed lines and openly endorsed the democratic candidate, and yet the people of the state could not bring themselves to make that change.

For that, I have a few ideas.

Democrats are the party of the mind, and GOP is the party of the heart. The pervading wave of anti-intellectualism has created perfect conditions for nationalism to take hold without a "pull back the curtain" moment to discover the underlying racism and bigotry that hides beneath it. (And at its worst the nationalism is actually driven by the racism and bigotry, and the degree to which you see these motivating forces is based upon your overall confidence and optimism in your fellow Americans.)

When fears are presented and promoted as what should be the top political issues, people will go with heart. Images of bald eagles, soldiers, guns, and American flags resonate deeper than charts, graphs, and endless opportunity cost discussions. They give a sense of safety and security.

If I can create a sense of fear and then present the following solutions, then I have you. Turn your brain off, you have no use for that anymore. I will tell you what to fear, but I will also tell you the solutions. Don't let those bleeding heart liberals, who care about everyone and everything, sway you from protecting yourself and your family. God, Guns, and Power are all you need. You are chosen, you are special, and you must fight to keep it! 

It is so simple and so effective that I don't think the progressives will ever be able to match it.

A few weeks ago we voted in candidates who brought no new ideas to the table, and, worse yet, came with ideas and world-views that have been overwhelmingly discredited by anyone who gives a serious look to the issues. But we voted in people who give us simple, forceful solutions to what we've been told to fear.

We were motivated by conviction over practicality, by ideology over reality, and by emotion over reason.

Somehow we have to figure out how to combat emotion with the complex nuance of real solutions, and that's a tough thing to do. There are no easy answers, other than just have the confidence that we can trust each other to understand complex solutions for complex problems. We are not a nation of idiots--we've solved some very tough problems throughout our history. The historical precedent is there, but we just can't let ourselves be sidetracked with emotional dead-ends.

--Brian Paul Swenk

If you like the posts please share and sign up for emails on the left.

Keep up with me here:
Facebook
Twitter

Politics of fear and cowardice in the mid-term election.

While many of us are quite surprised at the outcome of yesterday's election, you have to remember that our government was founded on the "balance of power" and that balance is supposed to teeter-totter back and forth. That's one of the things that has always kept this country at the forefront of world dynamics and is true of all successful governments throughout history. It's a natural democratic phenomenon and will hopefully continue, albeit in a healthier fashion.

Conservative vs liberal is very much like having both extroverted and introverted friends. They are a balance and both bring important things to the table. Too much introversion can be crippling and too much extroversion can be exhausting. This dynamic dichotomy was the birth of democracy, and anywhere that democracy has been successful you will find a healthy exchange.

The problem is not that the balance of power has shifted to the GOP, the problem is how we are allowing it to happen. We have allowed a party to sweep an election not by bringing great ideas to the table, but by using the well-honed conservative trump card of fear. Obama, Isis, ebola, gay marriage, minimum wage, unions, terrorism, abortion, Putin -- these are the things to be feared for our very existence. The GOP, much like many religious institutions, understand that fear is one of the largest motivating factors in our psychological underpinnings and they use it masterfully.

There was hardly any mention of education funding, green tech revolution, the deficit being slashed, much lower unemployment, massive corporate profits, consistent job growth, and on and on, because there is no deep-seated motivating factors in those issues. You can't convince someone that those issues will destroy your family in the way gay marriage is bound to do.

Should the Koch Brothers dark lord money masters be ashamed of monopolizing people's fears so they vote against their interests? Well, yes, if they had any sense of morality. Even Darth Vader showed empathy in his last moments of life.

But that's not where the shame should be placed today. No, it should be placed squarely at the liberal party's feet. The shame of fear-mongering is only trumped by the shame of cowardice, and that is what the Democratic Party should be facing head-on at this very moment, if there is any sense of responsibility.

Almost every single economic indicator has been turned around in the last 6 years, and any bi-partisan assessment of Obamacare has shown it to be an overall positive boost to both the economy and the deficit, yet Dems chose to consistently place themselves as far away from Obama as possible. How do you plan to win an election with the message, "Our party has turned the economy around, but I don't agree with it?"  That is pure idiotic cowardice.  Alison Grimes' main platform was how different she was from the President and didn't even have the guts to say she voted for him -- that's cowardice.

Political bravery would have been to say:
"We've slashed the deficit, but we should do MORE by investing in massive infrastructure upgrades while interest rates are rock bottom."
"We've patched a massive hole in the health-care system by allowing so many middle and working class people to purchase affordable insurance, but we should do MORE by figuring out how to extend that to the people of the conservative states who are being held political hostage."
"We've seen Wall Street profits soar to an all-time high, but we should do MORE by closing tax-loopholes and directing that money to education and hi-tech manufacturing retraining programs."
"I will work tirelessly for a constitutional amendment to end the Citizens United ruling, not because it will further my career, but because it will make the country better for our kids and grandkids"

But no, Dems marched lock-step onto the battlefield of fear and thought they could stand mano a mano with the dark lord self-serving billionaires and come out on top.

In the moment it was all very confusing, but in hindsight it was a myopic self-crippling strategy that didn't deserve to win. But it was also a strategy that we, the electorate, sat back and allowed to happen on our watch. We have just as much shame and blame as the Dems out there fighting--maybe even more.

The pendulum swings, panic and fear rules, yet somehow the human race continues to move itself forward in progressive tides that are forever strengthened by education, knowledge and a deep-seated humanistic empathy. If you want true change then never stop learning, never stop challenging yourself to new ideas and concepts, find common ground, and don't settle for fear-based narratives; but most importantly, demand that the people who represent you do the same.  Politicians only suck because we've stopped caring and have allowed them to.

(If you enjoy these please subscribe on the left of this page, and/or share. Thanks!)

Brian Paul Swenk

Why you should vote in the midterm election.

The midterm elections are coming up in a couple of weeks, and if you're like me, you've never even considered voting in them. They don't have the sex appeal of the Presidential elections where we can strut our civic participatory asses around feeling like we did our part for our "team," whichever side that is.

But extremist politics call for extreme efforts, like voting in the midterm elections.

Let's flip it around and look at why people won't/don't vote:

"Voting doesn't change anything."
If this were true the conservative movement wouldn't be making Herculean efforts behind the scenes to stop people from voting. The amount of gerrymandering, deception, and voter ID laws that happen behind the scenes is a true testament to the one act that can stop, or at least slow, the huge siphoning of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%.  If voting didn't matter, the Koch brothers would not dump hundreds of millions into purchasing elected officials. Trust me, it really does matter, they know it, and they're trying to disenfranchise or deceive as many people as possible.

"All politicians are crooked and paid off."
Here you have to differentiate between "all" and "a lot." One of the great misconceptions about politics is it only attracts crooks and liars, right? That is completely false. Most--and I do mean MOST--people get into politics for all the right reasons, the first and foremost being to just help the people around them. It is the system that takes good people and turns them bad. Congress is advised to spend half their time calling/begging/asking for money every single year to fund future campaigns. Of course the sheer pressure of this leads to short cuts and corruption. But not always! Follow Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren for outstanding proof of good, solid, honest people in the US Congress. Remember, a congressional vote happened this year to stop the horrible Citizens United ruling by the supreme court that allows corporations to donate unlimited amounts of cash to politicians. It split party lines as Dems voted to overturn the ruling while Repubs voted to keep it. Are they working for the middle class or are they working for the billion dollar companies?

"Government is inherently evil and should be stopped at all costs"
In 2008 I supported Ron Paul and the beginnings of the Tea Party Movement and I fell into this line of thinking. It's like the great scene in the Steve Martin movie "The Jerk."  "I don't need any of this stuff! I don't need anything! Except the fire department! That's it! ....and police! But that's all! Okay...schools...and maybe the CDC and hospitals...and food safety...and roads...but that's all! Well maybe bridges...and workers rights...and social security for Gramma..."

North Carolina, which has always been one of the most admired and progressive states in the south has fallen into the hands of conservative extremists. We quickly plummeted to the bottom of country for education spending, and it became so bad that teachers across the state started driving to Raleigh every week for the "Moral Monday" protests. Do we really want to live in a state where teachers have to protest for the simple morality of education? Do we want leaders that have piledriven us so hard into the ground that national publications started printing articles with headlines like "The Decline of North Carolina?"

So go vote and show everyone in DC that the "scorched-earth" politics that started with Newt Gingrich and continue to this day with Mitch McConnell are not a winning strategy. McConnell has said, "As long as Republicans refused to follow Obama's lead, Americans would see partisan food fights and conclude that Obama failed to produce change." They're willing to damage thousands of lives and families to make the president look bad.

But all that aside, all we need to do is look at the last 100 years of American economic history. There are 30 years where we grew the middle class to such a degree that American really was "the greatest country in the world." This happened with the federal government heavily investing in the poor and middle class, which started a brilliant cycle of growth. Jobs were created because the middle class was large and had buying power, not because billionaires received massive tax breaks. Education, public works projects, and a middle class moving upwards--these are symptoms of a healthy vibrant economy.

If you think voting doesn't matter--if you think politics is an evil barren wasteland--just go back and look at what happened from 1945-1975. We might not ever be able to achieve that type of growth again, but we're too rich of a country to have 20% of our kids on food stamps when their parents are working as much as possible. That is unacceptable.

So vote, and just importantly, understand what works for the middle class. Here's a hint: it's not tax breaks for billionaires.