Have the grave-dancers asked themselves why most Americans agree or were to the Right of Russert?

[Leopolds Ghost]

Russert was merely trying to be fair, as HE saw it, as a Reagan Democrat
(i.e. the majority of current Dems -- even so-called progressives in the
millenial generation who hate Bush are mostly indifferent to what Reagan
did, and are only socially liberal, not economic populists. Sadly, the Reagan Dems are the only
populists left in America, as the Clinton
campaign revealed) by playing off against both sides from the "middle".

Russert's style of journalism was old fashioned -- a double-sided
"Overton Window" which, instead of constantly pushing to the right,
he attempted to stand up for what he saw as Washington consensus
by defining both Reverent Wright AND David Duke, both Ron Paul
AND Al Sharpton, as beyond the pale, persons not to be memorialized
when THEY die. He did so because this is how most Americans see the
world. They want answers in life. They want to know who is worth
listening to and who is to be shunned and avoided. Russert wanted
to know this too. Russert was a product of his time, like a lot of
journalists, and it's sad to see DUers attacking him on his death
as if what he did is somehow exceptional or unusual.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3450291#3450311

Here's an example Chris Matthews gave that illustrates where
Russert was coming from. Note that Chris Matthews was not
critical in saying this, merely illustrative. Russert tried
to reflect the consensus POV of Middle America in defining
what is acceptable discourse.

Another example is how ALL people with money in America --
including journalists -- have no problem SPENDING and
living lavishly. Is Russert to be blamed for sharing
a luxury Nationals box (built at my expense) with Carville
and Bob Schieffer? No, because MOST DUERS spend lavishly
when they get money as well. Ask any of your relatives.
Go ahead, try criticizing them for buying that "desperately
needed" bigger house or SUV with Aunt Mabel's inheritance money.

[jgraz]

1. Easy answer: because collaborators like Russert put them there.

Next question?

[Leopolds Ghost]

3. No, because most former Dems are racist and ill-informed and most millenials/Xers are anti-populist

And decent American populists who actually want to change the debate
should be offended at the attitude of both groups. Russert merely
reflected what people are thinking INSTEAD of challenging it. OTHERS
pushed the Overton window.

[jgraz]

4. Russert reflected what the people were thinking??? Nonsense.

How the FUCK would Russert have gotten that job if he reflected ANYTHING but what Jack Welch and the rest of his corporate masters wanted?

The people get their information FROM news outlets, not the other way around. What zeitgeist is out there is produced by the media. Do you think somehow that wheat farmers in Nebraska and suburban soccer moms in Ohio all just spontaneously developed the same opinion in 2000 that Al Gore was an elitist liar? Or that George W Bush was a good and honest man of the people?

They developed that opinion because people like Tim Russert told them it was so. And they believed him. Just like he's done in this campaign with the "McCain is a maverick" myth.

If Russert had lived, we would have been treated to a weekly on-air fellation of John McCain and his trumped-up war hero backstory. Let's just hope that someone with a bit more integrity replaces him.

[Leopolds Ghost]

7. Everyone I meet who I think is a liberal turns out to be right of Russert. Buy a clue about America.

And I live in one of the most statistically liberal cities in America
where Nader outpolled Bush.

Ask Karl Marx, American politics are hostile to traditional leftism and
Tory conservatism, the European left-right divide. They hate both equally.

It's sad, but most progressives on this very board are not particularly
populist or liberal except on certain issues. Especially the new
generation. It is a very anti-populist movement. Anti-populist
leftism is worse than center right establishmentarianism because
it distorts the left. Just like Karl Marx did.

[jgraz]

9. More nonsense. Russert wasn't "right" or "left", he was corporate.

How would you know what his political leanings were from how he did his job? He just sucked at it. Period.

Speaking of buying a clue, maybe you should read Manufacturing Consent before you decide to hold forth on how media works in this country.

[Leopolds Ghost]

13. I'm probably to the left of you on some things. But I don't call myself a leftist.

You would probably attack me as not being a traditional social liberal
and being left of DU on civil liberties and some economic issues.
I'm a populist more-or-less but I'm used to hearing my beliefs
attacked by liberals when others express them. Why shouldn't I extend
Russert the same courtesy?

He was merely a fan of the old fashioned notion of Establishment
consensus. He was quite open about it and modernistic in seeking
to define consensus positions on issues that, of course, are not
injurious to the Establishment. That is normal behavior for most
Americans, especially old-fashioned modernists.

The Internet seems to have the same "lets-define-a-consensus"
problems NBC news does. Hence the self-segregation of political debate.

[Selatius]

21. I don't necessarily buy the notion that he reflects attitudes found in America.

There's evidence to suggest that the opposite can be true, that the media can just as easily be used to shape attitudes in a population subject to that media. Hence, the study of gatekeeper theory began in earnest in the 1940s/1950s well into today. Today, it's probably more commonly referred to as "agenda-setting":

http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Media,%20Culture%20and%20Society/gatekeeping.doc/

[Leopolds Ghost]

2. Well?

Interesting to see so little perspective from folks on the left who
choose to trash someone after his death for merely doing and thinking
what most of his fellow countrymen would have done, rather than attempting
to lead the debate and sway people to a different understanding of
right and wrong than the one commonly understoood by most centrist
Americans (which grave-dancing fails miserably at, so they are not
one to criticize Russert for being unpersuasively non-liberal.)

[JDPriestly]

5. How about Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc., etc.

And then there is greed and fear and materialism gone wild.

Racism, sexism, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, no self-esteem, no self-confidence, ignorance, ignorance, ignorance, especially about history and be basics of our political system.

Too few Americans read the Constitution every once in a while.

And while we are on that subject, Leopolds Ghost, when do you last read the Constitution? How about any of the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin? A lot of their writings are available on the Internet. Just Google.

[Leopolds Ghost]

11. Jefferson would be denounced and shunned if he were alive today. He'd be treated like Carter.

So would Tom Paine... and Jesus.

If you think the media would need to lead the charge against
Jefferson you're wrong. All they'd have to do is not try
and tamp it down and send people's racism and anti-populist
resentment and greed bubbling underground, away from the
limelight, like the 70s and 80s when TV news was more liberal.

If you want to change people's beliefs you need to get them
to stop watching TV and stop overconsuming altogether.
TV is an anti-populist, anti-civil liberties institution
by nature that seeks to sell your eyeballs to sadvertisers.
Most millenials have no problem with that. At least not
when they're watching Olbermann. Or some other
Howard Beale figure they can cheer and applaud while they boo Russert.

Its like sports. The marketers know you will boo the Red Sox
and the Red Sox fans will boo you. Both will watch.
What they want is conformity to the political classifications
set by the marketplace to target-market Americans as leftists
or rightist.

[Selatius]

6. I didn't trash him when he died, but I object to aggrandizing a person's memory after death.

I didn't like it when they did it with Ronald Reagan, and I won't like it with Russert either. Let the truth of his actions speak for his words. Was he heavy on the hitting questions before the 2003 invasion when people really needed to hear what was going on? Especially the 4100 Americans who would later die in Iraq. That's for history to decide as well as his testifying before Fitzgerald in the Scooter Libby case.

In my opinion, most people would be populists as their grandparents were in the past if it weren't for the fact that they are so poorly informed. The news media is so concentrated now, that the only bright spot is the internet.

You find more information on gay marriage, abortion, and other social wedge issues, otherwise known as "identity politics," than you do on economic issues. There is so much misinformation and lack of information in terms of the teaching of economic philosophy or even basic accounting that it is completely unbelievable for an industrialized nation.

A great example is when O'Reilly had on Kucinich on his show, and they were discussing the idea of a profit windfall tax on oil company profits.

One of the drawbacks O'Reilly cited--and this is a guy that many people watch--was that he said they would simply pass on the tax to consumers. He's completely wrong. A tax on income cannot be passed onto a consumer like a tax on production (such as the current gasoline tax).

If you made 100 dollars in a year, and I taxed 1 percent of it, you keep 99. Well, let's say you do jack up your prices a little bit and come out at 101 instead of 100 to make up for the lost buck. Well, come tax time, the tax man will still make you pay 1 percent, regardless of how much you want to push the money lost to taxes onto consumers.

[Reterr]

10. This is an excellent post-pity it can't be recommended

"You find more information on gay marriage, abortion, and other social wedge issues, otherwise known as "identity politics," than you do on economic issues. There is so much misinformation and lack of information in terms of the teaching of economic philosophy or even basic accounting that it is completely unbelievable for an industrialized nation."

Similar case with science and environmental issues. Real issues that require thinking are side-lined in favor of fist-pumping rhetoric that merely seeks emotional responses.

[Leopolds Ghost]

14. I agree with you. But the easiest way to be critical on someone's death is the old fashioned way.

Friends, romans, countrymen, I come not to bury Caesar and all that.

[Leopolds Ghost]

16. Actually your post is a great example of the sort of reasoned criticism I was hoping to find.

[Dark]

8. Don't waste your time. NBC could run news reels of Bush fucking a chimpanzee while burning the flag,

and people here would still accuse them of being "collaborators"

[demobabe]

12. It's the media reaction that is exceptional and ridiculous

I don't think there are any grave dancers here. Simply people that are watching NBC canonize this man, ignoring the reality that this guy was complicit with the scheme that lied the US into war with Iraq. The problem with journalists "of this time" is that they censor themselves so they don't get shut out of the inner circle in Washington.

Over a million Iraqis are dead. Over 4,000 of our soldiers are dead. Tens of thousands permanently injured and disabled, and many with mental disorders that will never be cured (while our VA system is cut back and doesn't provide the care these soldiers desperately need). Gas is up to nearly $5 per gallon. Food prices up, the economy in shambles.

None of that had to happen, but the people who could have stopped this didn't do it.

Russert would have been a true patriot had he DONE HIS JOB and called the Bush Administration during the whole Valerie Plame scandal. He opted for self-preservation instead.

Let's not make him something he isn't.

[Leopolds Ghost]

15. Did people attack Peter Jennings too?

The man essentially built their news desk. They are honestly upset.

Is it self-serving to go overboard when memorializing the sudden,
tragic death of a Tom Brokaw or a Tim Russert or a Walter Cronkite
or a Matt Drudge or an Arnold Schwarzennegger or some other
influential media figure? Perhaps. But it is sincere and not
political. It is newsworthy for them because Russert told them how
to do the news in the 1990s.

Now Reagan's death, which was not sudden, was manipulated in an effort
to canonize him. But even there popular hysteria by Reagan Dems
(the very people who felt closest to Russert as viewers, and their
anti-populist, anti-civil liberties offspring born in the 80s and 90s)
did most of the work. DC Metro's busiest day in history was the
Reagan funeral, with a procession a mile long to get in to see him.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. Horseshit, Reagan Democrats were populists so long as only white people benefitted from it

They voted for Reagan because he droned on about how "welfare queens" were keeping them from getting ahead in life. Some of them figured out it was a scam and started voting Democratic again. Others continue to vote for people like George W Bush and John McCain because they are still convinced that tax money only goes to help "welfare queens" instead of hard working folks like themselves.

And frankly I gotta tell you I don't mourn the loss of the New Deal Coalition and the fact that these people left the Democratic Party even if that means that we moved toward the center on economic issues. I still consider myself to the left of the Democratic Party on many of these economic issues and would like to see it move back to the left in that regard. And if the Reagan Democrats want to come back to the party and move it to the left economically then I'm all for it. But I'm not caving one damn bit on my "elitist" socially liberal views in order for that to happen.

[Leopolds Ghost]

18. Paragraph #1: Exactly my point, and most Americans are like that.

Paragraph #2: So you're against the New Deal, but you want to move the
debate to the left? The debate was pretty damn left of where it is now
before Republicans co-opted racism to associate blacks = liberals and
therefore liberalism = bad in the public mind. Which is the state of
play (just look at the Reverend Wright thing.) You blame Tim for that?

[Hippo_Tron]

22. I'm not really talking about Russert here

You're correct that the debate was to the left on economic issues but economic issues only. Women and minorities were second class citizens during the New Deal era and homosexuals are still second class citizens because of the influence that "Reagan Democrats" have over our government.

The New Deal coalition required the support of extremely narrow-minded bigots (many of them from the south but certainly not all of them). Roosevelt was dead right that the political reality of the 1930's wouldn't allow him to advance civil rights legislation. The committees in congress were controlled by many of those narrow-minded bigots who would've killed the New Deal if Roosevelt had introduced a civil rights bill and then the country likely would've fallen to a fascist coup like much of Europe was doing at the time.

But it's not the 1930's anymore and we're not facing the imminent prospect of falling to a fascist coup. Put another way, the New Deal coalition has outlived its usefulness and a new one is going to have to move to the left both on economic and social issues.

[EFerrari]

19. Um, the majority of Democrats are not "Reagan Democrats".

:wtf:

[Leopolds Ghost]

23. No, their kids are even further to the right. But they're socially liberal and secular so they Dem.

Sadly :-(

[bean fidhleir]

20. I have a little test for you. Look at the politics represented by popular literature

You'll find it's almost exclusively left-of-center. Because that's what sells. People don't want to read about a-holes triumphing - they get enough of that in real life, as the victim. They want stories where justice, fairness, and ethics triumph for a change.

They're lefties. They might scratch and struggle through the day, but that's because of what the system forces on them, not because it's how they want to live.