"Hillary Clinton belongs in prison." "Allowing an ambassador to die while one was Secretary of State is a terrible black mark on one’s record." "The Democrats’ system for choosing the presidential candidate was not set up in a fair way, and Bernie’s supporters got the shaft." These opinions, along with many others, should have elicited intense discussions among the citizenry, but they haven’t because we live in a mediacracy, and not just any old mediacracy, but one that leans heavily progressive. As such, they squelch any tendency to have open discussions and debates that reflect badly on progressive politics.
The mediacracy is, as the name implies, rule by the media. The media guarantees that issues it is uncomfortable with never get discussed, except very occasionally in a mocking way. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit often says of members of the media that one should think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines. This is almost exactly right, though Bernie’s supporters might amend it to read that they currently are Clinton supporters with bylines.
The mediacracy has enormous power to control our elections, partly by controlling the issues, and any candidate whom it opposes needs quite a lead over the media’s preferred candidate to stand any chance of winning. In Britain, the mediacracy is such that, despite the clear and obvious problems of the EU with respect to Greece’s economy and the flood of immigrants, the cry of the mediacracy wasn’t a humble, “Please give us a little more time to work things out,” but rather an arrogant “You people are racist, stupid, etc.”
I don’t like the term mediacracy, but it was coined by someone else. (And what would replace it? The chattering-classes-ocracy? No, I don’t think so.) Given that it has already been used, let me point out that we should really be talking about the mediacracy plus. That is, not only is our country under the heavy control of our media, but people with similar views run our schools and Hollywood as well (and probably the IRS and the FBI). One feels, if one disagrees with the mediacracy, as though one were swimming in a vast sea of disagreement, when in reality the numbers on the other side may be small, since the mediacracy is not usually representative of what ordinary people think. If it weren’t for the Internet, a dissident might feel truly alone.
One of the features of the mediacracy is its love of double standards, so that it lobs softball questions at Hillary, and hardball questions at any of her opponents. It covers up for her medical problems, while highlighting any such problems in her opponents. I may be wrong, but it seems that the media has become less objective as the rise of the Internet has allowed people an escape from its clutches. Or maybe it has become less objective because the Internet has allowed people an escape from its clutches. That is, those who are part of the media may feel that they need to be less objective simply because they see so many alternative opinions on the Internet which they feel they must oppose. Those who a few years ago predicted the death of newspapers have been proved wrong, since they are still around and still influential.
The existence of the mediacracy allows Hillary Clinton to easily dismiss questions posed of her that would rip anyone else apart. She knows perfectly well that the mediacracy will ignore her answers if they make her look dumb and go after the questioners for daring to ask anything critical of her. (Then her supporters pat her on the back for her amazing ability to come through such encounters unscathed.) This includes questions asked of her by congressional representatives. The people who support the mediacracy control reality, to the extent that they can. They always dismiss with mockery and never reasoned argument the views of anyone who does not share their view of reality. For example, Mitt Romney warned us about the Russians, and he was right to do so, but the mediacracy thought he was living in the past and mocked him for it.
Likewise, the mediacracy insists that global warming is a big problem, even though it was discredited long ago by bad predictions and the email scandals of ClimateGate. Any genuine investigative reporter could have had a field day with that business, but “investigative” reporters these days only look for scandals on the other side.
This brings me to 9/11. The mediacracy was stunned into speechlessness for a few days after 9/11, but it quickly came up with the question, “Why do you think they hate us?” Once that question was posed, the mediacracy quickly rallied around the view that it was all our fault and that if we would just stop inciting them, then all would be well. In other words, Islamic terrorism is nothing but a nuisance, and since the mediacracy controls the issues, this is the way the powerful elements of our society sees it as well, despite the dissenting opinions of many of us. I’d like just one of them to answer these questions: “Given that Muslims destroyed the left in Iran, are destroying the left in other parts of the Middle East, and are associated with regimes that are hopelessly sexist, homophobic, and anti-secular, why do you think it is sensible to bring so many of them to the West? Why shouldn’t I instead regard Islam as the most reactionary force the left has ever faced?” But those question will never get answered, while people like me are regarded as stark, raving mad (and racist) for thinking of Muslims as any kind of threat.
I keep going back to the predictions of a professor on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 because they sum up so nicely the way the mediacracy plus thinks about these things. He suggested (here) that in fifty years (that is, the year 2061) we would be ruing the fact that we hadn’t done anything about global warming, while 9/11 would be totally forgotten. Yet, so far nothing shows that this particular pair of predictions is coming true. There has been a pause in global warming, which wasn’t predicted by any of the climate scientists, and the terrorist incidents just keep happening, together with a lot of lesser incidents (like the gropings in Cologne) that show that we have big problems with Muslims. It is of course possible that things will change in a sudden and unexpected way. The terrorist incidents may suddenly cease as Muslims decide that it is better simply to fit in with Westerners, and our summers may get much hotter and our winters much warmer than they have been in recent years. But if our professor has to rely on sudden and unexpected changes in order to believe that his predictions will turn out to be correct, then keep in mind that the sudden and unexpected changes might go in the opposite direction: terrorism and related lesser incidents may suddenly get much worse (to the extent that, just as in Israel, we must go through security to get into fast-food restaurants), and our summers may get much cooler and our winters considerably colder.
Since sudden and unexpected changes may go in either direction, it is better simply to go with where things are currently trending, and they are not trending in the direction of global warming, while they are definitely trending in the direction of continuing problems with Muslims.