How the “Respectable” Media Serves the Political Elite
“When Perot backed out of the campaign it became clear that people will have to wait a while longer before we see essential institutional changes in United states politics. ” — Murray Rothbard, 1992
The Presidential Election: Clinton and the Media
In January 1993, Bill Clinton is going to be inaugurated as President of the United States. On August 7 [1992], while it was nevertheless unknown whether this would be the outcome of the election, Anton Wahlman interviewed the libertarian economist Murray Rothbard. Rothbard is certainly S. J. Hall Recognized Professor of Economics at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, and he has and a lot more written books on the subjects of monetary theory, company cycle theory, and the beliefs of economics.
Anton Wahlman: Anyone who has been interviewed by the media knows that in principle they always existing reality from a particular point of view. News from the United States is usually particularly distressing in this sense. Even the largest newspaper within Sweden, the Expressen , publishes editorials in support of the Democratic Party usa president candidate, Bill Clinton. Give us your take, Murray Rothbard!
Murray Rothbard: I am particularly pleased to get the chance to address a Swedish audience. During the last half century, the particular social democrats [liberals] in the United States, though the tad embarrassed by the excesses of communism, have marketed the supposed success from the Swedish “ third method. ” I am therefore greatly pleased that Sweden seems to be on its way to emerging from the darkness of the “ 3rd way” and starting across the path to a free society.
Your question is about the prospects for an eventual victory by Bill Clinton in November. I believe how the most important lesson I have for my Swedish readers is that they should not believe any reporting or any articles from United states media. American media are usually divided into “ respectable” and “ non-respectable” press. Respectable media, which are the only real ones that are read by American political elite, plus presumably are all that filters down to European readers, are completely biased in favor of social democracy. The non-respectable mass media, which are read by the people but have no influence at all in the circles of power, do not care about ideology yet are mostly interested in selling as numerous copies as possible, and in accumulating the largest numbers of viewers plus listeners they can. For this reason, reality occasionally manages to find its way into the non-respectable media.
The ” respectable” media aren’t simply in favor of Clinton because they are social democrats, but also because they like his style: that is to say, he is young (people in the press are generally of an age along with Clinton and Gore, plus they share the outlook of this generation), and he is a “ social democratic reformer” (read: neo-liberal), which is to say that he hides his socialist ideology in technocratic “ value free” rhetoric, rather than the outdated 1930s-style slogans of class struggle.
The truly great media lie in the 1992 electoral campaign is that Clinton, unlike earlier Democratic usa president candidates, has moved from the “ left” to the “ middle” of the political spectrum, and also that unlike previously presidential candidates he is not really beholden to left-wing unique interests. The fact is that they tried the same nonsense in the Dukakis campaign in 1988, and they also were not successful in lying to too many people. Clinton’s “ moderation” and “ business friendly” views consist of his advertising of “ investments. ” But these “ investments” have mysteriously been redefined in order to consist of government spending! The current media narrative claims the fact that US economy is losing productivity, and that what is needed to improve productivity is higher taxes (! ) plus increased government spending on “ infrastructure” — that is to say, additional money wasted on government streets and more money for colleges which serve mostly because indoctrination camps.
To sum up my view on this presidential campaign: The Bush administration has been a quasi-catastrophe, stumbling along the road to ever more government power: higher govt spending, higher taxes, more regulations. A Clinton management would constitute a complete tragedy: Bush’s stumbling would be replaced by a deliberate and intentional desire to drag the United States down into the socialist maelstrom. This is obviously not an optimistic viewpoint, at least not in the growing process. In the long run, on the other hand, I am significantly pleased that ever more Americans hate the state, realize the particular evil of the two-party system, and demand a radical change in our political program.
If Ross Perot had stayed in the campaign there would have already been some hope that we could have seen a system change that would have shaken up the corrupt and monopolistic two-party system, which is worshipped and glorified by those who benefit from their monopoly privileges. When Perot backed out of the campaign it became clear that we will need to wait a while longer just before we see fundamental institutional changes in American national politics.
