I’ve always despised the alleged leaders who surround themselves with “yes” men (and today, of course, women). It doesn’t matter if they’re on the condominium board, in corporate management or, worst of all, in politics.
And the worst of the worst in the political realm would have to be our elected representatives in Congress. For an egregious example of why I despise those who surround themselves with a chorus of “yes, you’re the greatest,” consider the case of Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif. In a meeting back home with constituents, Mr. Sherman was asked about the Black Panther voter-intimidation case. (This is a case where the feds are trying to dismiss their own default victory.)
Sherman knew nothing about the case. He blamed the media. And in one sense that’s very true: The incestuous media he acknowledged consuming doesn’t seem to think that “thugs with clubs” walking around polling places and touting “the black man” is news. Unfortunately for Mr. Sherman, his constituents knew all about the incident, and the subsequent Justice Department whistleblower – despite living on the other side of the country. They didn’t buy his ignorance.
Like the rest of Congress, Rep. Sherman has a support staff to whom he pays millions of our taxpayer dollars every year. Apparently, they all consume the same media, too. I’m guessing they all attend the same parties. And they all have the same political viewpoints.
So under these circumstances, how does Rep. Sherman “represent” his district? Did everyone in his district vote for him? Or was it only a bit over half – leaving the other half voting for someone else? So how does signing onto an ideologue-driven agenda “represent” the people in his district?
And that’s the problem. With the Internet, there’s no excuse for current-events ignorance. Thirty minutes a day will give you a pretty good idea of what the folks you don’t necessarily agree with are talking about. Some of them might just have a point worth considering. Wouldn’t you want that viewpoint represented in your inner circle? After all, you are representing everyone in your district.
Frighteningly enough, Mr. Sherman may be one of the more reasonable Democratic members of Congress. He was one who questioned being railroaded into the administration’s health-care “reform.” So what gives?
The rise in the Internet correlates very well with public skepticism about the media’s fairness and objectivity. Many of us who have observed this have assumed that we – and the population in general – were the target of media manipulation.
As Internet news sources have proliferated, it has become more and more obvious that the East Coast media exist to push an elitist, metropolitan agenda down the rest of the country’s throat. Bail out the big banks. Wild-eyed environmentalism over the interests of ranchers, farmers and forests. The East Coast’s media cover the news they want and give it the spin they want. And they bury the news they don’t want our “representatives” to consider in their policymaking.
So maybe we the people aren’t the major target. Government in Washington, D.C., is adrift, moving further and further away from the people it supposedly represents. Yet our representatives are clueless when confronted with a major issue “back home.” Perhaps we the people were never the real target of the East Coast media. Perhaps it was always the people we sent to the East Coast in the election.
Why bother propagandizing the entire nation, when all you really need is the “hearts and minds” of a few elected representatives, and the bureaucrats they depend upon? These few make the decisions, write the laws and spend the money. Who cares what the rest of the nation thinks?
We sit in other parts of the country and wonder how the mainlining media think they can control the news, now that the Internet is available. But perhaps we’ve mistaken the real target of their propaganda. Maybe it’s not us. Maybe it’s our representatives.