How the Progressive Punditry's Inability to Communicate the Big Picture to the Mainstream Media Supports Bush and his Right Wing Base

Note: When I was trying to find Frank Rick's email I noticed that The New York Times does not allow nonmembers to access the columnist's email addresses.

Truth is a shock to the system. To the critical thinker there is much missing in the discussion about current events and politics and policies. The speech at the UN that Chavez seemed odd and simplistic but it propelled Noam Chomsky's book to the Bestseller list knocking out NYT's Frank Rich's critical expose of the war and general cynicism of Bush/Rove politics from the no 1 spot.

Seems a bit a odd that it takes a foreign leader like Hugo Chevez is needed to make mainstream America aware of one of its own greatest living social and political critics. Yet that to me is the most striking thing about it all - in the 20 years I have researched media and current events this is the first time I ever heard Chomsky referenced in the mass media.

Chavez's waving of Chomsky's book into the air during his UN speech may have done more to make the American mainstream aware of alternative thinking than the American progressives themselves even those who get access to the mainstream media such as Rich and the Nation's Katrina Van Huevel.

Yet Rich when asked about Chavez's speech on ABC's This Week, http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/ the first words that roll from his mouth are "I hate him." At first I was not sure if he meant Chavez or Chomsky... There is much about Chavez to dislike, but why put him in a different league than Bush when the very book he writes makes them look very similar - as opportunitistic ego centric master manipulators? I guess the answer is that Bush is American and Chavez is not. Bush is not simply a SOB but he's our SOB and that changes everything and indeed sets the faux progressives apart from those deeply dedicated to progressive values. Recenly in Israel we saw a similar dynamic with even Haretz - the main progressive newspaper - suddenly sounding very hawkish during the invasion of Lebanon.

In America there is much questioning about why the Democrats are failing to get their message across to mainstream and some say it is an issue of organization and sound bites. The answer to me goes to deeper than that. Even the progressive wing of the Democratic party is dominated by well intentioned but still top down thinking folks and so it smells of hypocrisy and more importantly such smells are disempowering to the grassroots rank and file. Conservatives are more effective in mobilizing their grassroos, as the conservatives are more inclined to uncritically accept authority and the perogatives of top down organizational structures that dominate their political movement.

Another major issue: Progressives when they get air time seem very timid in connecting the dots and standing their ground, because they are afraid they will be called out of touch with the mainstream, liberal or worse unAmerican.

It is not so much that Rich had to say he loved Chavez, but he just blurted out "I hate him" without really considering why Chavez's anti-American views seem to reflect the sentiment of a growing number of people around the world.

Its another missed opportunity to connect the dots between the stupidity of American foreign policies and growing global resentment of America - especially in relation to his recent book on Iraq and the War on Terror.