Naming the culprits

In a post yesterday, I mentioned an article by Gloria Steinem, Women Are Never Front-Runners New York Times 01/08/08, and one by Robert Scheer that takes Steinem's article as a starting point, Playing the Class Card Truthdig.com 01/08/08. I quoted Scheer saying, "What we need far more than a change in appearance is one of perspective," because "the George W. Bush administration engaged in class warfare for the rich with a vengeance that has left many Americans hurting, and we desperately need change to reverse that destructive course".

The point I take from Scheer's column, though he doesn't quite put it this way, is that no matter who the nominee is, their personal background and even their personal preferences are not going to be enough to enact useful legislation for the benefit of working people when those measures are opposed by entrenched lobbies. However often it may be used as an excuse for giving in to conservative pressures, it is true that politics is the art of the possible. And a well-organized, well-funded minority can derail a proposal like universal health insurance coverage that may be supported by even a large majority of the public if there isn't some offsetting political pressure being asserted in favor of it.

Steinem's column is on the mark in identifying some of the genuinely sexist assumptions that have gone into press commentary on the Clinton campaign. But there is something important that she doesn't say. And she avoids saying it by using the passive voice, which George Orwell considered a particular bane of good writing, thus hiding the subject making these assumptions. For instance, Steinem writes:

But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.

What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.

In one place, she uses an active construction that gives us a subject, "What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system".

But, as Bob Somerby has been tirelessly pointing out for years, liberals for whatever reasons are often far too reluctant to talk about the problem created by one of our most seriously dysfunctional social institutions, which Steinem mentions in passing without imputing any particular misconduct to them: "That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love." (my emphasis)

Here's a clip of one of the subjects hidden behind the passive voice in those sentences:



Steinem's criticisms above would have focused more on the problem that Clinton has faced specifically in her Presidential campaign if she had written:

• What worries me is that Chris Matthews and many other commentators see Obama as unifying by his race but see Clinton as divisive by her sex.

• What worries me is that the sad cohort we call our "press corps" accuses her of "playing the gender card" when citing the old boys’ club, while they describe him (for the moment) as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.

• What worries me is that our badly dysfunctional Establishment press described Iowa voters as gender-free when supporting their own, while they regarded female voters as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.

I generally try to avoid criticizing people for not saying something. But many times what is not said carries its own message, intentionally or not. And Somerby is right that the Democratic Party, the country and the world are paying a big price for the long-standing reluctance of liberals to talk about the dysfunction of our mainstream press and about what a travesty and danger to democracy that dysfunction is. Gene Lyons chronicled for us in some detail what in some important sense was a turning point in the collapse of the American press in his book Fools for Scandal: How the Media Invented Whitewater, published in 1996. The national press misconduct which in practice works heavily against the interests and goals of the Democratic base, has been slapping us in the face for a decade and a half now. We don't need to be minimizing the failure of the press by helpfully hiding their misdeeds in the passive voice, or covering them with silence.

Chris Matthews is by no means the only culprit. But he's made himself a poster boy for the press corps' hatred of Clinton. For some of the well-deserved criticism directed his way, see:

Greg Sargent, One Day After Saying He'll "Never Underestimate Hillary Clinton Again," Chris Matthews Says She's Only A Presidential Candidate Because Bill "Messed Around" Horse's Mouth blog 01/09/08

Gene Lyons himself, Winning isn’t necessarily about numbers Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 01/09/08. He writes:

No need to vote, fellow peasants; MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd and the rest of the Beltway All-Stars have saved you the trouble. Ponder this recent passage from the allegedly liberal Dowd: “Has Hillary truly changed, and grown from her mistakes ? Has she learned to be less stubborn and imperious and secretive and vindictive and entitled ? Or has she merely learned to mask her off-putting and self-sabotaging qualities better ? If elected, would the old Hillary pop up, dragging us back to the dysfunctional Clinton kingdom ?” (My italics. )

Translation: “Bitch !” Having basically grown up in a Maureen Dowd column, albeit with less wit and more profanity, I’ve known this variety of Irish Catholic misogyny forever. My sainted mother warned me against the cunning and duplicity of women almost to her dying breath. It’s a sorrowful remnant of sexual Puritanism.

... It’s worth remembering that this same cohort of cocktail party chums declared George W. Bush a charming fellow and Dick Cheney a wise and seasoned statesman back in 2000. Their judgment is shaky at best.

Bob Somerby, The Daily Howler for 12/21/07

More violent imagery from Matthews: If Clinton beats Obama, "what does she do with the body?" Media Matters 01/05/08

Larry Johnson, How Could the Polls be so Wrong? No Comment blog 01/08/08. Johnson doesn't hide the mainstream media behind the passive voice:

I don’t know about you, but I am thoroughly pissed off at the lame, unprofessional conduct of the various networks–MSNBC in particular. They knew that the polls had at least 17% undecided. Rather than simply report that there were a significant number of undecided voters and any projections were not reliable, they danced around like crack addicts celebrating the demise of the Clintons. Hillary is too wimpy. Hillary is too stern. Hillary is too manipulative. Hillary is not manipulative enough.

Special offenders include Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, and Howard Fineman. They were so busy dancing on the Clinton grave that they did not have the decency to do some objective analysis. Hell, they tried to deceive the American people. So much for the death of Hillary’s campaign. (my emphasis)

To get a look most every weekday of some of the more significant subjects in those passive-voice sentences, see Bob Somerby's The Daily Howler.

Tags: chris matthews, establishment press, gloria steinem, mainstream media, mainstream press, robert scheer