Wisconsin Elections: A Cure For Lazy Journalism

Wisconsin Residents: Did you know that August 14 is primary election day in Wisconsin? Did you know that on that day voters will be choosing candidates for Governor and United States Senate for the establishment political parties (Democrats and Republicans) and third parties? Did you know that in Wisconsin you can only vote in ONE party primary? (i.e. If you want to vote for a Democrat in the crowded field for Governor, you CANNOT then vote for a Senate candidate in the Republican primary.). Do you know who are the candidates running in each party primary? If you know at least some of their names, do you know what they stand for?

If you vote in the Democratic Party primary on August 14, 2018 these are the candidates. Do you know their names and what they stand for? Has mainstream journalism helped you get to know the issues and where candidates stand on them? 

Over the years I have found that even people I consider to be "politically aware" answer "no" to many of the above questions, or at best offer up a lukewarm "yes." High numbers of uninformed or under informed voters is a sign of civic distress. Such distress is not a new phenomenon, but it's arguably gotten much worse over the years. There are many reasons why, but given that this is a "media rants" blog, I only feel qualified to comment on the role of the political journalism. To put it bluntly, political journalism in Wisconsin--by which I mean the reporting and editorializing produced by the establishment, corporate media that reaches the largest number of readers/viewers/listeners--does not cover elections in our state in a way that provides meaningful information and commentary capable of provoking increased voter participation. In a word, the quality of journalism concerning elections in Wisconsin is LAZY. (It's also vapid, scandal obsessed, and privileges "insider" views--but those are all byproducts of the laziness.).

I'm going to suggest a cure for lazy campaign journalism, but first let me clarify what I am NOT saying. I am not saying that establishment journalists are bad people who purposefully dumb-down campaign news coverage so as to benefit the anti (small-d) democratic forces that rule Wisconsin. Most journalists are well meaning and do their jobs as best they can given the real institutional constraints they face. Chief among those constraints are the lack of resources dedicated to news gathering/investigative reporting and the fear of offending advertisers--factors that completely frustrate any kind of "outside the box" style of journalism.

Lazy political campaign journalism typically centers around the following boilerplate themes:

*Which candidates have the most money?
*Which candidates have the potential to raise the most money?
*Who's ahead in the Marquette poll?
*Who's ahead in any other reputable poll(s)?
*Who won the Convention straw poll?
*Should only candidates with large campaign bank accounts be invited to debates?

There's also an obsession with anything even remotely scandalous in candidates' backgrounds; usually just an accusation from an opposing candidate or opposing party spokesperson is enough for the "scandal" to get coverage. And critically, campaign journalism is sourced almost entirely by political insiders with some kind of vested interest in the story angle.

Note that the boilerplate themes tell readers/viewers/listeners almost nothing worth knowing about the election or the candidates. This year the journalism has been excruciatingly bad, which is especially tragic given that the Democrats had so many qualified candidates enter the race. We're heading into the August 14th primary knowing primarily that: Tony Evers leads in the polls, only four of the Democrats running for governor will probably be able to raise the funds necessary to compete against Scott Walker, Democrat Matt Flynn has been under pressure to withdraw from the governor race because some victims of priest abuse claim that Flynn was unethical in his performance as an attorney for the Milwaukee archdiocese, the one viral video of primary season features Democrat Kelda Roys nursing her infant child, and that Scott Walker is one of the most unpopular incumbents in the country. Really gets you fired up to want to work on a campaign, eh?

Spattered throughout the products of lazy journalism are candidates views on issues, but that is typically an afterthought. Moreover, the explanation of the issue at hand is either absent or not sufficient, so that the independent voters (who are the majority) cannot really be sure what a candidate being "for" or "against" something actually means. Later in this post I will suggest that the initial months of campaign coverage should say almost nothing about the candidates and instead just provide in-depth examinations of the major issues facing the state, the incumbents' records on those issues, and the competing policy options. That way, when the media finally does get around to covering the candidates, their views on issues might actually make sense.

Let me provide just one example of the kind of journalism I've been critiquing. In July of 2017 Milwaukee businessman Andy Gronik announced that he would be seeking the Democratic Party nomination for governor. Like most voters, I knew absolutely nothing about Mr. Gronik. The Capital Times' coverage of his campaign announcement was typical: In the story we learn that Gronik sent out a fundraising email critical of Scott Walker, that Walker and Lt. Governor Kleefisch have over 3 million dollars on hand, that Gronik wants his supporters to contribute $5 or more in a grassroots fundraising effort, that the Republican Party of Wisconsin filed an Ethics Commission complaint against Gronik (for reasons that are not clear) over the way he handled a political nonprofit that he created. The story was later "updated" to clarify that the Commission had dismissed the complaint. The story includes a quote from Republican Party spokesperson Alec Zimmerman, who calls Gronik an "out-of-touch con artist." The story does include Gronik's rationale for running and his stands on some issues, but the overriding theme is that he's trying hard to raise money while the Republicans claim he is out-of-touch and possibly corrupt.

Milwaukee businessman Andy Gronik was an example of a candidate victimized by lazy journalism. Early coverage of his campaign focused mostly on his prospects for fundraising and baseless GOP cheap shots at him. Like most candidates, he was forced to find some kind of gimmick to generate attention; at the GOP convention in Milwaukee Gronik showed up with a rolling billboard critical of Scott Walker. 

If you search the Wisconsin media for stories on all the candidates entering the race for governor, you will find all of them meet the same basic pattern. The candidate's prospects for raising money, the candidate's reason for running, and the cheap shot from operatives in the opposing camp. I struggle to try and understand how any of these stories help me as a voter. Am I supposed to be impressed that a candidate has money or a slick way of raising it? Are put-downs from political hacks on the other side supposed to have any credibility?

That last point--allowing political hacks to get in a free cheap shot at a candidate--is one of the real defining characteristics of lazy political journalism. My guess is that the reporters and their editors allow it out of some twisted sense of "balance" and/or fear they will be accused of a "liberal bias" if they don't do it. But whatever the reason, the end result is to put every challenger on the defensive before they even have a chance to begin campaigning. So here's what the Republicans were given space to say about each of the major Democratic Party candidates for governor in stories that announced their campaigns:

*Mike McCabe: A "phony" who led an organization that took money from billionaire George Soros.
*Tony Evers: Stands with teachers who circulate porn in schools.
*Mahlon Mitchell: A "union boss" who protects big government special interests.
*Matt Flynn: A "dirty defense attorney."
*Kathleen Vinehout: Authored one of the biggest tax increase proposals in state history.
*Kelda Roys: Too liberal even for Madison.
*Paul Soglin: Extreme liberal who wants to take our state backwards.

Of course political hacks are free to take cheap shots at anyone. My point is that there is no good reason--journalistically or ethically--to privilege their cheap shots in stories that purport to be informing us about why a candidate is seeking office. In establishment newspapers, the political hacks ought to have to write letters to the editor to get their word out, and be subject to the most rigorous fact checking possible. On television and radio there is no good reason to include hacks as part of coverage, as all they do is sow division and create confusion. Mainstream media ought not enable that kind of nonsense, no matter what side of the political spectrum it is coming from.

A Model for Covering Campaign Season: Maximize Voter Education, Minimize Political Hackery

Suppose the establishment media woke up one morning and decided to cover campaign season with a sense of journalistic integrity and civic responsibility. What would that look like? Anyone who approaches this topic seriously has to come to the conclusion that responsible campaign journalism would at a minimum do two things: (1) maximize voter education and (2) minimize political hackery. Currently political journalism is hack driven; it relies on dueling press releases from self-serving parties, the major consequences of which are to dumb down coverage and reinforce the already existing sense of cynicism most people feel toward politics AND journalism.

An alternative model consists of three stages of campaign coverage:
1. The pre-primary stage.
2. The primary season stage.
3. The general election season stage.

I am especially interested in races for governor, but the model can also be applied to presidential, US Senate, state legislative races, constitutional offices (Attorney General, Treasurer, etc.), and even local races. The model really doesn't require that news organizations spend any additional money or hire more journalists (although that would be nice.). All it really takes is establishment media owners and editorial staff having the guts to ASSERT INDEPENDENCE from the political hacks that seek to control the way candidates and issues are talked about, and to DECLARE ALLEGIANCE to (small-d) democratic principles and meaningful civic engagement.

Stage One: Pre-Nomination Signatures

In Wisconsin, as in most states, candidates for governor do not officially get on the primary ballot until they submit a required number of signatures. In 2018 the candidates had until June 1 to submit the required number of signatures to get on the August 14th primary ballot. Before that June 1st date, literally anyone could have announced an intention to run for the office. Indeed on the Democratic Party side, by early 2018 there were close to twenty candidates declaring an intention to run. Even though it should have been clear that not all of these candidates were serious, and that not all of them would get the required number of signatures necessary to be placed on the ballot, the establishment media covered them all essentially the same--using various versions of the boilerplate themes mentioned above plus the obligatory cheap shot from a GOP hack. This mostly nonsensical coverage mostly benefited incumbent Governor Walker, as he and his operatives were able to deploy the narrative of a chaotic Democratic Party unable to unify around anything other than dislike of Walker. There seemed to be an assumption in all of this coverage that the typical voter (a.) knew something about the issues mentioned by the candidates in their statements as to why they were running, (b.) knew Governor Walker's positions/actions on those issues, and (c.) understood that there were multiple options for dealing with those issues.

Allow me to suggest that before the nomination signatures are due, there really should be very little coverage of candidates. If establishment newspapers, TV, etc. want to provide links to candidate websites and social media handles, that's fine. Let the hyperpartisan websites, blogs, and social media carry the candidate hackery at this point in the election season. For media that reaches large numbers of voters, the pre-nomination signature stage ought to be less about candidates and more about voter education. That would include:

*Foundational stories about the ABCs of voting: how and where to register, obstacles to voting (voter ID, change of address, etc.), offices that will be on the primary and general election ballots, requirements for voting in a partisan primary, etc. For political junkies, this kind of coverage almost seems "common sense," but that is because such junkies inhabit bubbles occupied really by only a small number of people. Talk to average, everyday people in your neighborhood and you will find that there is widespread confusion out there about the ABCs of voting. For stories on the ABCs of voting, mainstream media should partner with nonpartisan good government groups like Common Cause in Wisconsin to get out the most current, accurate information about how to vote. 

*In-Depth Coverage Of Issues: This would be the most critical part of pre-nomination signature coverage. Wisconsin's budget is driven by six main funding areas: K-12 education, health coverage, road construction, state aid to local government, prisons and the criminal justice system, and the University of Wisconsin System. In the pre-nomination signature stage, we should be treated to rigorous journalism telling us what the current level of funding is for each area, how the funding has changed over time, how Wisconsin compares with other states, and as much nonpartisan, independent analysis as possible.

In addition to the budget drivers, election coverage at this stage should focus on other issues identified by voters as important. The Marquette Law School Poll or the St. Norbert College Wisconsin Survey would be suitable, reliable sources from which to identify issues that mainstream media could then explain in more depth. Those issues for 2017/2018 include:

*Tax Reform
*Marijuana Legalization
*The Opioid Crisis
*Gun Control
*Raising the Minimum Wage
*How to Handle Wisconsin's Worker Shortage
*Wisconsin's Shrinking Middle Class
*Should we Restore Collective Bargaining
*Environmental Protection
*Campaign Finance Reform
*Rural Broadband Access
*Human Trafficking
*Racism
*Police Reform

If in the  pre-nomination signature stage the media covered the election in the manner I am suggesting, the candidates who most benefit would be those doing what candidates should be doing at that point: traveling the state, meeting voters in local town halls, shaking hands door-to-door, communicating with county political parties, and everything else associated with grassroots politics. They would be freed from the pressure of finding some kind of gimmick to get media coverage, because the media would have made it clear that they are not interested in gimmicks. They would even be freed from the obsession with fundraising, because the kind of media coverage I have in mind will ultimately privilege ideas and hard work over "connections" and ad buys.

Stage Two: The Primary Season 

In Wisconsin in 2018, this stage would have started on June 1st (the day nomination signatures were due) and ended on August 14 (the date of the primary election.). During this stage we know exactly who will be on the ballot. Media coverage should do the following:

*Provide in-depth biographies of candidates.
*Interview candidates and get their views on each of the issues mentioned in Stage One.
*In races where there is an incumbent (such as this year's race for governor and the race for US Senate), provide clear information about what the incumbent has done on each of the issues presented.
*Organize each candidate's positions on a chart where they can be listed side-by-side against all the other candidates on the ballot. For newspapers, print the chart every day leading up to the election and/or make it easily available on the website. For television, radio, and other media, make sure your viewers/listeners know how to get access to that chart.

During this stage of the campaign there will of course be town hall forums, debates, and other events where candidates get to share their views. Should any candidate deviate from the positions they have already taken (as pointed out in the issue chart), good journalism should expose that. Voters need to know if a candidate panders to different audiences or in any other way walks back from the position s/he has already taken. 

Notice that in both Stage One and Stage Two,  there is NO ROOM AT ALL for political operatives and other cheap shot artists who want to dumb down the election to benefit their side. The operatives are free to send letters to the editor, troll media websites, pollute political blogs, etc., but they CANNOT be allowed to continue to frame the coverage of the campaign season if we want to have any kind of integrity in our politics.

Notice also that media coverage as envisioned here has no interest AT ALL in how much money a candidate has raised. If she or he has gotten enough signatures to be on the ballot, that's enough to warrant serious coverage by the media.

Finally, if mainstream media insist on covering polling data, it should only be after Stage Two coverage in which each candidate has had the opportunity to have his or her views stated fairly and in comparison to other candidates. I daresay that if we had this kind of media coverage model in place, Andy Gronik and Dana Wachs (candidates who dropped out because of low poll numbers) would still be in the race.

As with Stage One, Stage Two media coverage largely benefits hard working, grassroots candidates willing to get out and make his or her case directly to the voters. 

Stage Three: The General Election 

The results of the August 14 primary will determine the nominees for each party. At that point the mainstream media should do anything possible to make sure that all the voters of the state get an opportunity to hear the candidates. Mainstream media should work with the League of Women Voters to facilitate one debate between the candidates in EACH of Wisconsin's congressional districts. That would guarantee that the issues of concern to ALL the state's residents--urban and rural--would get a fair hearing. Establishment media should come to an agreement that if a major party candidate refuses to participate in at least one debate in each congressional district, that lack of participation will be reported widely and repeatedly all the way up to election day. 

Candidates for governor and United States Senate should have at least one debate in EACH of Wisconsin's 8 congressional districts. That would help increase the chances that the needs of ALL the state's residents get addressed. 

During the general election season, it is common for candidates to hurl accusations of corruption or unethical behavior at each other. Typically, just the ACCUSATION is enough to get an above-the-fold headline or the lead story on the evening news. In the model I am proposing, corruption/ethics accusations will undergo the highest level of journalistic vetting and scrutiny before being reported. It's not right that a candidate could lose an election because of an "October Surprise" that later turns out to be bogus. 

Conclusion: The Urgency of Reform 

It's hard to exaggerate how badly we need to reform election coverage journalism. There seems to be a clear and disturbing correlation between the low quality of journalism and the low voter participation in elections. The issues facing our state and nation are too serious to continue tolerating the civic distress brought on by the toxic combination of special interest candidates, lazy journalism, and low voter turnout. 

I don't pretend that my reform suggestion is perfect or can be easily implemented in an environment where political journalism has been stuck in a mediocrity rut for an entire generation. My hope is that what I have proposed can at least start some conversations among the powers that be that control mainstream news in our state. I honestly believe that the kind of journalism I am proposing would greatly increase digital subscribers for newspapers that do it, so they could avoid the pathetic threats to hide their content behind a paywall unless you pay up. 

If you think the current election season journalism is okay or the best that can be done under the circumstances, fine. But please don't act shocked when voter participation continues to plummet, and people we elect continue to place the needs of well-connected special interests above The People. 

Eric Burdon's 1968 Rock Gospel Against Empire

During Donald Trump's ascent to the White House, his presence on television was as in-your-face and irritating as lake flies in spring (only people who live around Lake Winnebago, WI will have any idea what that means.). When I watched Trump on TV back then, what immediately came to mind were lines from "No Self Pity," one of my all time favorite songs by Eric Burdon and the Animals: 

And no matter how low you are
There is always somebody lower . . . 
And no matter how dumb you are
There is always somebody dumber . . .

That song is from the 1968 album "The Twain Shall Meet," a recording much overlooked for two major reasons. First, the album competed for attention with releases by the Beatles ("The White Album"), Jimi Hendrix ("Electric Ladyland"), The Rolling Stones ("Beggars Banquet"), Cream ("Wheels of Fire"), and others whose songs that year became staples on FM album oriented rock radio stations for many decades. 

Second and less obvious is that "The Twain Shall Meet" is one of many 1967 - 1970 recordings that over the years became marginalized as primarily "psychedelic," hippie-era opuses. In other words, for the corporate guardians who decide what we get to hear on radio--and who decide how rock and roll will be defined in "official" writing about the genre--an album like "The Twain Shall Meet" represents not much more than "Eric Burdon's drug phase" or a period piece that allows baby boomers to look back with gleeful nostalgia at the glory days of acid dreams and sexual freedom. 

Make no mistake: the LSD inspired, hippie movement fingerprints on "The Twain Shall Meet" are as obvious as the graffiti on New York City subway trains. You have to be willfully obtuse to miss it. But to state that fact does NOT mean that the values expressed on the record are naive, irrational, or not worth considering as an important early stride in the CONTINUING and VITAL effort to expose and transform the consumerist, military-industrial-complex culture excesses that have left too many spiritually empty and all too eager to sacrifice meaningful human engagement for the thrill of a digital technology induced dopamine rush. To challenge those excesses does not mean that you are or have to be a hippie. Likewise, for the challenge to those excesses to come from a 1960s era rock album ought not make the challenge any easier to ignore. More from "No Self Pity": 

Modern day structures are fantastic 
But have you seen a butterfly's wings? 
Man has created symphony 
But have you heard a blackbird sing? 
Man can make sweet red wine 
But have you tasted a mountain stream?
Hollywood has created movies 
But listen to the color of your dreams 

With record numbers of people addicted to their smart phones, why on earth would we want to keep those lyrics stuck in 1968? There's a temptation to say, "oh, those words were just the LSD talking," with the implication being that you somehow have to be stoned in order to have any kind of appreciation for sensory awareness, nature, and being present in the moment. Somehow to be "sober" means to suspend any hope that love, tolerance, peace, understanding, and other "hippie" values can have any real force in our lives. If being sober means having to reject real love, then it's no wonder so many would rather be stoned. 

The Twain Shall Meet: A Rock Gospel Against Empire

Eric Burdon and the Animals' "The Twain Shall Meet" really is not a great album in the way "great" albums are typically understood. It does not include an abundance of "catchy" songs, the production quality is sloppy in places, the playing of the instruments does not inspire awe (with the exception of Danny McCulloch's bass playing, which is outstanding throughout), the lyrics are sometimes more obscure than necessary, and it does not show up on lots of "best of" lists. The album did break into the Billboard top 100 for a few weeks in 1968, but that was largely on the strength of the songs "Monterey" (a timely celebration of the 1967 festival that introduced the world to Jimi Hendrix and other legends of the era) and "Sky Pilot" (a protest song that was appreciated by the growing anti-war movement of the time.).

To be frank, I didn't make much of this album myself when I first became aware of it around 1976 or so (I was too young to fully appreciate rock music in 1968). By 1976 the late 1960s era artists were fading, and a range of new genres were gaining currency (soul, punk, disco, new wave, early hip hop, etc.). More troubling, by 1976 FM radio was abandoning its original mission to serve as a space for the expression of counterculture values through music and discussion, so like millions of youth I really had no one to educate me about the meaning(s) of rock and roll. It wasn't until years later, when I discovered that the album title "The Twain Shall Meet" was a pun off of Rudyard Kipling's line "Never the Twain Shall Meet," that I took renewed interest in the record. 

Depending on who you talk to, Rudyard Kipling the poet and novelist (1865 - 1936) was either an overt racist apologist for European/American imperialism or, as the late Christopher Hitchens argued, a man of "permanent contradictions" whose work paradoxically supported colonialism at the same time presenting an "exaltation of the common man." 

Is Eric Burdon and the Animals' "The Twain Shall Meet" a response to Kipling? Listen to the album and judge for yourself.

Regardless of who is the "real" Kipling, there is no doubt that he was the unofficial poet of the British Empire whose works were widely seen as a celebration of the Western attempt to "civilize" the East. Eric Burdon appears to have been taken with Kipling's poem "The Ballad of East and West" (1889), which includes the line "Oh East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet." (This would not be the only time Burdon would pun off of Kipling. With his band War in 1970 he released "The Black Man's Burdon," a twist on Kipling's jingoistic and pro-imperialist "White Man's Burden" [1899]). 

My reading of "The Twain Shall Meet" is that, in the anti-establishment style of peace-loving hippies, it is a challenge to all the vestiges of empire: white supremacy, hyper nationalism, mindless patriotism, war, and the destruction of nature. It is significant that Eric Burdon himself hails from Newcastle upon Tyne, the northeast England working class industrial center that survived German air raids in World War II. Newcastle's "Geordies," like the working poor in the United States and indeed all over the globe, were/are ultimately the main domestic victims of the greed of the empire builders. Yet instead of giving us a kind of Bruce Springsteen/John Mellencamp "celebration" of the working class--a celebration that situates working class consciousness as a fixed and permanent part of the human condition--Burdon's "The Twain Shall Meet" seeks to transcend all class consciousness. If Kipling was a poet for empire builders, Burdon circa 1968 was a poet for the empire wreckers. The best way to wreck the empire, the album says to me, is to emancipate your mind from its allegiance to empire values. (In that sense the album is very Bob Marley-esque).

"The Twain Shall Meet" could have been called "The Gospel of Eric Burdon and the Animals." The opening track, "Monterey," starts off with Burdon whispering "In the Beginning" as if we are about to be introduced to a new creation myth. And in a sense we ARE introduced to a new creation myth: "Monterey" celebrates the famous "summer of love" music festival as a multicultural mix of peace-loving youth creating such an overwhelming space for love that "even the cops grooved with us." Monterey in a real sense gave birth to the counterculture. 

On the orignal vinyl album all the songs ran into each other, which enhanced the sense that all the tunes were part of one bigger story. Bassist Danny McCulloch penned and sang two songs on side one ("Just the Thought" and "Orange and Red Beams"). Both have a kind of acid trip vibe to them, though "Just the Thought" comes off like a warning to all who would strive for the empire's definition of success: 

As I play I see me winning
And I gain what's called self-pride
And I turn around with a smiling sigh
See a flower that has died
I feel a change, another change
Another game, I will have learnt

If there is a masterpiece on "The Twain Shall Meet," it would have to be "Sky Pilot," the epic anti-war tune. A "sky pilot" is a military chaplain. In the song the sky pilot is a "good holy man" who glibly sends young soldiers off to war. Burdon's sky pilot is the Rudyard Kipling figure whose job it is to indoctrinate the servants of empire: 

The fate of your country is in your young hands
May God give you strength
Do your job real well
If it all was worth it
Only time it will tell

For me, Burdon's "Sky Pilot" was a stand-in for Kipling, and the song a not-so-subtle "Fuck You" to all those who enable war. Since 2001 in the United States we've had ample numbers of sky pilots gleefully sending men and women off to ill-defined battles. No surprise "Sky Pilot" has pretty much disappeared from FM radio over the last decade. 

The last song on "The Twain Shall Meet" is "All is One." Bruce Eder in an AllMusic review says the song "is probably unique in the history of pop music as a psychedelic piece, mixing bagpipes, sitar, oboes, horns, flutes, and a fairly idiotic lyric, all within the framework of a piece that picks up its tempo like the dance music from Zorba the Greek while mimicking the Spencer Davis Group's 'Gimme Some Lovin.'" 

I'm not sure why "We are one/your neighbor is your brother" would be deemed idiotic. In fact the widespread outrage to the Trump Administration's cruel and family unfriendly immigration crackdown is in a sense deeply rooted in the humane premise that we ARE all one regardless of borders. But Eder is certainly correct that the piece is unique even by the high creative standards of sixties progressive rock. 

Eric Burdon's entire career in music has been about lifting people up, which is why I reject attempts to marginalize "The Twain Shall Meet" as merely being part of a hippy "phase." As Burdon himself says on his website: 

The music I love was created by the sons and daughters of slaves. My life's work has always been about honoring those people who suffered and thus, created a language of peace and salvation through music. Everything we believed in during the 60s, everything people fought and died for, is being jeopardized today.

Eric Burdon's rock gospel against empire is as vital today as it was in 1968. Probably even more vital given the overt and disturbing trends toward fascism across the globe. 

Pompeo and Circumstance

During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump claimed repeatedly that Iraq was one of the biggest disasters in American history, and that he would declare victory in Afghanistan and send the troops home. I've written previously about how Trump benefited from the "war fatigue" developed since 2001. 

By the summer of 2017 Trump's behavior as Commander in Chief erased any hope that he might actually make good on what sounded like promises to minimize America's war posture, and instead he actually escalated militarism as the nation's foreign policy of choice. Unfortunately Washington Democrats continue to talk "resistance" to Trump while continuing to aid and abet him when it comes to military spending. 

But it gets worse: now that Trump has decided to surround himself with the hawkish Mike Pompeo and John Bolton as chief national security advisers, and has Gina Haspel now leading the CIA, he's guaranteed that the "neoconservative" policies that gave us Afghanistan and Iraq will continue to prevail. 

Neoconservativism in American foreign policy after 9/11 became a toxic mix of ultra-nationalism and the assertion of the right to launch preemptive military strikes in any place at any time. The true neo-con views any anger and/or aggression aimed at the United States not as the "unintended consequences of the US government's international activities" (what the CIA calls "Blowback"), but as irrational hatred of our freedoms. In the neo-con fantasy, the world is essentially a clash between the forces of civilization and barbarism, with the US always the archetypal symbol of the former. 

From 2001 - 2008 George W. Bush was the front man for neoconservatives, repeatedly renouncing any attempts to see the events of September 11, 2001 and anti-American terror in general as responses to America's global behavior. We're now in a bizarre situation where Bush himself is having second thoughts about "why they hate us" at the same time Trump (probably due to a mixture of incompetence and ignorance) is doubling down on neo-con principles. 

Context: Bush talks to Bono

If you can believe it, former President George W. Bush now hosts an annual "Forum on Leadership." According to the Bush Presidential Center, the Forum is designed to "develop, recognize, and celebrate leadership by bringing together leading voices for in-depth discussions on today's pressing issues." My initial reaction was that Harvey Weinstein should be hosting a Forum on Feminism if a Forum on Leadership can be hosted by a man whose "leadership" produced two failed wars, an ill-defined "War on Terror" featuring tortured interpretations of the Constitution that justified literal torture, tax policies that exploded the deficit and increased inequality, the Hurricane Katrina botched rescue and recovery mission, taxpayer bailouts of big banks and other "too big to fail" institutions, and the worst economic collapse since the 1930s. That record is not exactly an argument for ending presidential term limits. 

Every year the Forum on Leadership will feature the presentation of the "George W. Bush Medal For Distinguished Leadership" to an individual who "has inspired others to action, and who has demonstrated a sustained commitment to improving the lives of others." The first recipient was none other than Bono, the lead singer of the rock band U2, who was recognized for his anti-poverty and anti-AIDS work. United Kingdom writers George Monbiot and Harry Browne have written blistering critiques of Bono's brand of activism, claiming that the practical consequences of the Irish crooner's  cozying up to power are (1) the silencing of  the very people he is trying to help, (2) aiding the attempts of the rich and powerful to brand themselves as grand humanitarians, and (3) shielding the power brokers from having to take responsibility for their own policies that create the very problems they purport to be trying to solve. 

Bush and Bono: Distinguished Leaders?

After presenting Bono with the Medal, Bush sat down for a televised (on C-Span) conversation with him,  moderated by the president's former White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten. I watched it so you don't have to. Before a by-invitation-only crowd at the Bush Center, Mr. Bush and Mr. Bono talked about how they became friends and how they worked together to provide relief to Africans. Bono told the audience that thanks to Mr. Bush, American taxpayers are AIDS activists. The two almost seemed to envision themselves as Winston Churchill and Albert Schweitzer reflecting on their heroic efforts to save Western values and rescue the African continent from the scourge of poverty and disease. But the level of delusion made it look and sound more like Nixon and Elvis in the oval office. 

Bush and Bono 1.0: Nixon and Elvis

The conversation did include one statement by President Bush that made me experience shock, anger, and hope at the same time. The statement was: 

"I was worried about the security of the country after 9/11. We spent a lot of time worrying about that. A lot. And one of the things you have to do is address why is it that people would come and kill our citizens. And it's one thing to respond, and we did. Forcefully. But the other thing is to think about the long term causes. And I was telling this to Bono earlier--that the AIDS issue is not only a moral issue for a great nation, it's a national security issue. So think about those orphans that were there and, what happens if  nobody shows up to help. You know the big, rich nations of the world said 'it's not our problem. Let them figure it out.' And then all of a sudden a group of people show up and said, 'we're your new family--we care for you'--that's before they instruct them on how put a suicide vest on. And so it's in our national security interest. SEE THE LESSON OF 911 IS: HOW OTHERS LIVE MATTERS TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. "

Why does that statement provoke shock, anger, and hope? 

SHOCK:  Mr. Bush and his administration spent years after 9/11 insisting that anti-American terrorism was the result of "them" hating "us" because of our freedoms. I've written previously about how Mr. Bush's framing of 9/11 ("Freedom and Fear are at War") made it almost impossible to imagine America's opponents as motivated by anything other than irrational hatred. So to hear him now, 17 years later, admit that the issue is not so simple is shocking. 

ANGER: Imagine if, in the weeks and months after 9/11, President Bush had said, "How others live matters to our national security." Suppose at the time he had had the political courage to state other obvious truisms: Our foreign policy globally and in the Middle East provokes widespread anger; the poor people of the world have as many reasons to be suspicious of us as they do to like us, etc. If the leader of the United States had the courage to state the obvious, we probably could have prevented the loss of thousands of lives and the dislocation of perhaps millions more. Not to mention the number of military families in this country that will forever be pained by the experience of having loved ones suffer as a result of vaguely defined combat missions. 

HOPE:  Who knows, if George Bush is now able to state the obvious, maybe it will start a trend among other elected officials. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, but if someone who spent his entire presidency denying that "how others live" had anything to do with national security can change, maybe anything is possible. 

Pompeo and Circumstance

With candidate Trump seeming to run in opposition to the so-called neocon foreign policy that ruled the Bush administration, and with George Bush himself now evolving toward a more nuanced view of America's foes, this should have been a good time to rethink the dominant foreign policy choices of the last 17 years. Those choices, under Bush AND Obama, wrecked lives, cost trillions of dollars, expanded the power of the President to launch "preemptive" wars, made continuous drone bombings a centerpiece of US policy, declared war against whistle blowers, undermined whatever moral authority the United States once had in the world, turned local police forces into branches of the military, and reduced the United States Constitution from its status as the Supreme Law of the Land to a "nice idea." 

No one expected Donald Trump to be a peacenik. and I am fully aware that what he said on the campaign trail (like most of what he says today) was worth about as much as a degree from Trump University. Still, at some level he has to know that Mike Pompeo and John Bolton represent the exact opposite of what he ran on, and that their appointment to high level positions greatly increases the chances of another military quagmire in the Middle East or somewhere else in the world. 

During Mr. Pompeo's recent confirmation hearings for Secretary of State, Senator Rand Paul was the only legislator who engaged in any meaningful dialogue with him about the neoconservative principles still guiding American foreign policy. Senator Paul ultimately caved and did vote to confirm Pompeo, claiming that in a private conversation Pompeo told him he agreed that Iraq was a mistake. Sure. 

Anyone who's been to a college graduation has heard "Pomp and Circumstance." The phrase actually comes from Shakespeare's Othello, as part of a lament about leaving the battlefield. Othello says: 

O farewell,

Farewell the neighing steed, and the shrill trump,
The spirit-stirring drum, th' ear-piercing fife;
The royal banner, and all quality,
Pride, pomp, and circumstance of glorious war!

Perhaps the Trump Administration will announce an intention to rename the tune "Pompeo and Circumstance," with the "shrill Trump" not saying "farewell" but "Hello" to the pride, pomp, and circumstance of glorious war. 

Frightening. 

An interview with Tom Breuer (AKA Aldous J. Pennyfarthing)

In 2002 Tom Breuer (pronounced BROY-er) was editor of the Fox Valley SCENE, an alternative, independent monthly newspaper published in northeast Wisconsin. In July of that year Tom called to ask if I would like to write a monthly column of media criticism. He even came up with the name "Media Rants." Media Rants appeared in the hard copy SCENE every month for approximately 14 years; in 2016 I moved it over to this blog. Suffice it to say that were it not for Tom Breuer, there would be no Media Rants. So blame HIM.

Originally from Manitowoc, in the early 1990s Tom attended UW Green Bay where he edited the student newspaper The Fourth Estate. He left Wisconsin in 2015 and now lives in the northwest. Back in his SCENE days, he wrote some great comic pieces for the paper, often with a progressive political bent. In 2006 he coauthored a satirical screed against Bill O'Reilly, earning the praise of anti-wingnut warriors like Al Franken and Keith Olbermann. He's coauthored two additional books: Fair and Balanced, My Ass: An Unbridled Look at the Bizarre Reality of Fox News and The Brotherhood of the Disappearing Pants: A Field Guide to Conservative Sex Scandals.

In the Trump era Tom contributes frequently at the liberal blog Daily Kos under the pseudonym Aldous J. Pennyfarthing. As Aldous, he has recently published a hilarious e-book entitled Dear F*ucking Lunatic: 101 Obscenely Rude Letters to Donald Trump. You can get the book for $2.99--less than the cost of your favorite tall latte--through Amazon Kindle, iBooks, BarnesandNoble.com and other online retailers.

If you consider yourself a Trump hater or part of the so-called "resistance," you should really support fellow travelers like Tom/Aldous. There's so much in the book for you to agree with that you'll find yourself saying "F*ck Yes!" at least once during each obscenely rude letter. You Trump lovers out there should check out the book too; you won't like the critiques but you'll appreciate a writing style that is the literary equivalent of putting the middle finger in the face of people and things the writer doesn't like.

To give Media Rants readers a better sense of what Dear F*ucking Lunatic is all about, I asked Tom to respond to a few questions. He graciously agreed to do so. Below are my questions and his unedited responses.

Media Rants: In your e-book it’s clear that you’ve been outraged by the Trump Administration and Trump personally for a long time. But you say that it was this particular Trump quote from a New York Times interview that really provoked your first obscenely rude letter to him: “Yeah, China, China’s been . . . I like very much President Xi. He treated me better than anybody’s ever been treated in the history of China, you know that.”

      What was it about that particular quote that set you off?

      Tom Breuer: I’m not sure if you’ve ever noticed, but Trump lies a lot, and when he does it’s an assault on our intelligence and sense of fair play. Of all his lies, it’s the impossible-to-believe, self-aggrandizing ones that are the most puzzling. And when most of us are doing our best to adhere to a social contract that demands we speak the truth whenever possible, it’s infuriating to see the president of the United States, of all people, lying so brazenly. And it’s doubly infuriating when approximately 30 percent of the population believes him no matter what he says.

      

      So China is at least 2,239 years old if you go back to the beginning of the Qin dynasty, and much older by some accounts. And he thinks he’s the most warmly received visitor to China ever. More so than Marco Polo — or Justin Bieber even. This wasn’t a lie about Obamacare or his tax scam or anything particularly important — and we’ve known for a long time that he tells the truth about as often as Steve Bannon sheds his exoskeleton — but there was something about this one that seemed so over the top and absurd that it was almost as though he was openly taunting any American with a nanogram of decency. And the scary part is he probably believes it on some level. It’s like I said in the book — the statement was the geopolitical equivalent of “that stripper really likes me,” only 10,000 times crazier and less self aware.

 Media Rants: Back in 2006 you coauthored a book called Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O’Reilly. Did you hate O’Reilly then as much as you seem to hate Trump now? And to what extent do you think Trump is in some ways a result of the impact of Fox News over the years?

      Tom Breuer: Trump and O’Reilly are a lot alike. Their ego, their bluster, their abject dishonesty, their uncanny physical resemblance to Ed Gein’s basement furniture. But you might say O’Reilly was like John the Baptist to Trump’s Cheeto Messiah. For one thing, they both have a first century understanding of the world. Secondly, O’Reilly prepared the way for Trump, but he’s not worthy to hold his loofah. Trump is orders of magnitude crazier and more repugnant.

      Fox News laid the groundwork for this travesty, and for years its go-to bully was O’Reilly. As the original purveyors of fake news, Fox and its disinformation campaigns made a big difference everywhere in the U.S. in 2016, but they may very well have put Trump over the top in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. And the network continues to enable Trump’s every worst impulse.

Media Rants: You call Trump a variety of names in the book, including: “America’s last, worst dope,” “megalomaniacal Teletubbie,” “unvarnished asshole,” and “Twitter twat.” Trump himself is known for bitter attacks against his opponents. What would you say to supporters of his who might read your book and claim that you are being hypocritical? And what would you say to people who agree with your critique of Trump but think that critics should take the “high road?”

Tom Breuer: Well, first of all, I’m not president. Yet. Apparently you no longer need any real qualifications, so maybe my once-annual St. Patrick’s Day bacchanals at Bazil’s wouldn’t be an obstacle after all.

Secondly, there is no high road anymore. Trump demolished it when he defended neo-Nazis after Charlottesville. We’re engaged in street warfare now — figuratively, anyway.

Finally, there’s a difference between punching up and punching down. Trump punches down. He insults immigrants and minorities and tried to yank health care away from millions of vulnerable Americans who depend on the ACA. Then he turned around and enriched his wealthy cronies through his tax scam while simultaneously insisting he was doing exactly the opposite.

He is to humanity what E. coli is to lettuce. Any legal means we can use to get him out of office or diminish his ability to terrorize the most helpless members of society are justified.

The book isn’t entirely a ranting screed, though admittedly that’s most of it. It’s also a call to arms for blue wavers in advance of the November election. That’s when we’ll all have the opportunity to channel our anger and make a real difference. At the end of the book I include several resources for helping to turn that blue wave into a tsunami. That’s a start, and I’m happy to pitch in, even if it means using a swear or two (or 500).

Media Rants: One thing I find extremely valuable about your book is the way in which it provides a chronology of all the absurd things that Trump has said and done since taking office. I understand the desire to lash out at Trump, but to what extent are you also trying to maintain a documentary record of –to put it in an Aldous J. Pennyfarthing kind of way—“what the f*ck is actually being done to us.” 

Tom Breuer: While writing and researching the book, I was struck by just how many Trump outrages — things that would have virtually defined any other president — had already fallen down the memory hole. We’re presented with new horrors on a daily basis, so it’s hard to dwell so much on any one thing. The book is a good reminder of just how abnormal, undignified, petty, and cruel Trump is. Maybe that’s its real value — reminding us that things really are as bad as they seem. By no means are we imagining it.

Media Rants: Aldous’ letters strike me as a cross between the late Hunter S. Thompson and Stephen Colbert if he was not constrained by the FCC. What literary and/or political criticism traditions do actually influence your writing?

Tom Breuer: Al Franken has always been the gold standard for me when it comes to political humor. He wrote a book that thoroughly deflated Rush Limbaugh when Limbaugh was still at the height of his influence. I was lucky enough to be a guest on his radio show while promoting “Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O’Reilly,” and he gave me my favorite review of the book, calling it “hilariously snarky … nutritional too.” Meaning he thought it was funny and informative, which is how I always viewed his writing. Needless to say, the accusations that forced him to resign were deeply disappointing.

Beyond that, yes, Colbert and The Daily Show have always given us “real news” to counteract the Fox scat that energizes so many conservatives.

I don’t think I can touch Hunter S. Thompson — at least not until mushrooms are legalized for therapeutic use.

Media Rants: You end the book with this message to President Trump: “The midterms are coming, friend. And 2020 isn’t far away. Namaste. And fuck right off . . . We’ll vote against treason and rot.” Are you engaging in wishful thinking there? If not, what leads you to believe that the midterms and 2020 will be bad for Trump?

Tom Breuer: According to FiveThirtyEight’s poll aggregator, Trump’s approval rating has been underwater since day 15 of his presidency. We were all so shocked at his victory that we tend to forget that he’s never been all that popular or well respected. And the special elections have been canaries in a coalmine. So far we have just a few dead Republican canaries. By November, I expect that we’ll have dozens more.

Media Rants: Anything else you would like to add?

Tom Breuer: Vote.