Glenn Greenwald

[Ethelk2044]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/28/centrism/index.html

What Beltway media stars mean by "centrism" and "extremism"
(updated below)

As always, when wielded by Beltway media stars, the terms "centrist" and "moderate" and "mainstream" mean "whatever views I personally happen to hold on a topic, regardless of how many Americans actually share it." Hence, the unanimous, wise Beltway wisdom was that Barack Obama "blew it" in the last Democratic debate by proclaiming his willingness to meet with leaders of hostile countries, while Hillary Clinton scored a big victory.

As but one example, from Thursday's Chris Matthews Show, discussing the Clinton-Obama debate:

MATTHEWS: I share your sentiments. But as a journalist, I have to look at the politics of this thing. Your last words?

HAYES: I think if continues down this course I think he's in serious trouble because it‘s unsustainable.

MATTHEWS: Too far left?

HAYES: Absolutely.

Matthews went on to pronounce, with regard to the exchange with Obama, that it shows why Hillary "will win this thing."

And what of polling data that shows exactly the opposite? Who cares? Beltway wisdom is more representative of what Americans believe than what Americans actually believe. From the latest Rasmussen Reports poll:

Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say that the next President should meet with the heads of nations such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea without setting any preconditions. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 34% disagree while 24% are not sure.

That question came up during last Monday's Presidential Debate with Illinois Senator Barack Obama saying he would commit to such meetings and New York Senator Hillary Clinton offering a more cautious response. Democrats, by a 55% to 22% margin, agree with Obama.

This is precisely the same process that causes one to hear endlessly from Beltway pundits about how Democrats will be in big, big trouble if they keep up with these investigations because "Americans" sure don't like that, even though polls continuously show that Americans overwhelmingly want Congress to investigate the Bush administration even further. The claim that Congress is "going too far" or "neglecting the people's business" or "engaged in witch-hunts" are actually embraced only by minorities. But that is what the government-defending Beltway media believes; hence, they repeatedly assert as a mantra-like chant, based on nothing, that opposition to more investigations is the "centrist position," that Americans do not like Congressional probes and see them as unjustifiably obstructionist.

It is not difficult to understand why Americans are supportive of Obama's pro-diplomacy instincts. It is because they have seen the alternative for the last six years and know that it is a petulant refusal to speak to the Bad People that is the real fringe, dangerous, extremist position. Indeed, the actual fringe extremism on this issue was vividly illustrated on the same Chris Matthews Show, by the very same Stephen Hayes, the Serious right-wing national security scholar and all-around tough guy:

[illinoisprogressive]

1. beltwayers want to pick our nominee,,,the wrong one.

[Kingstree]

2. Hillary has been the media's darling from day one.

[AX10]

3. The beltway pundits are 100% republican.

Even the nominal "Democrat" rolls over and defends the GOP.