Someone surreptitiously recorded Hillary Clinton lambasting MoveOn and the activist base.
"We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."
Leaving aside her inaccuracy (MoveOn did not oppose the war in Afghanistan) and her recitation of right-wing talking points, this provides me with an excellent opportunity to write about a theory of mine.
First, this may actually help Hillary while damaging Barack. I think we have to assume the next debate or round of media coverage will consists of our villagers asking:
Senator Obama: In 2004, MoveOn.org, a liberal organization, hosted a video on its website that compared President Bush to Adolph Hitler. In 2007, the same organization called the integrity of General Petraeus into question by running a full page ad In the New York Times calling him General "Betray us". Senator Clinton has criticized MoveOn.org, you accepted their endorsement. Why?
But that is not the point of this post.
No, the question I want to try to answer is:
Why do the villagers - and by that I mean our elite journalists - think this, and questions like these is a good question? And why do republicans so often get a free pass?
Honestly, I think the runaway success of right-wing talk radio has a lot to do with it.
You see, success for the villagers depends almost entirely on their talent for self-promotion which pretty directly translates to their ability to gain and hold an audience. They compete with each other in their niche, and they compete for stature across mediums. For example, it is in David Brooks' interest to see his work cited more often than, say, Francis Fukyama's. To the extent appearing on Meet the Press elevates his profile and lends an aura of "seriousness" to his persona... well, I'm betting that he doesn't often turn down the opportunity.
At the same time the villagers compete for prestige and stature, they see themselves as the sole guardians of its distribution and they husband their influence jealously.
The Chicago alternative weekly once did a profile of Georgia10, a one-time front-page diarist at the DailyKos. Georgia10 was a prolific blogger and achieved her "front page" status the old-fashioned way - by appealing to readers. For months before becoming a "fper," her musings were consistently hailed by the 100,000 strong DailyKos community. After accruing a record of insightful and sober analysis, the site's proprietor, Markos Moulitsas rewarded her by giving her the keys to the site.
In the article written by the weekly, the author made an observation that was amazing in its simplicity: over the course of any given week, Georgia10 probably reached more people than any of the elite columnists at our newspapers or on our televisions.
There are literally scores of Georgia10's littered across the progressive blogosphere. Why aren't they invited to share their views with Tim Russert?
My guess: the villagers just cannot accept that it can come so easy. Tim Russert, Tom Freidman, David Broder, et al... they had to kiss a lot of ass to get to where they are today! They aren't about to let some pajama-clad twenty-something crash their party. It's a zero-sum game for them - there are only so many seats at the round-table, only so many cocktail weenies to go round... It takes more than insight, logic and talent to horn in on their insular little gravy-train.
So what does all of this have to do with talk radio?
It relates in two ways. First, at least some of the time the villagers are going to have to speak to we commoners. To the extent they are always going on and on about Joe Sixpack and his wife the soccer-mom, they need to develop their opinions from something outside their elitist perch. When you make millions per year, hob-nob at one black-tie event after another, summer in the Hamptons and fawn at the feat of torturers and fret about the capital gains tax... well... Joe Six-Pack and Mary Soccermom's day to day experience is going to be pretty much a matter of guesswork for you. That said, you can make an educated guess.
Where to turn? I posit that they tackle the problem the same way they tackle everything else: by looking at the closest peers they have that are connected to the populist pulse. I think they look to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to figure out what the little guy is thinking. (In fact, Brian Williams has said he's a fan and listens to the show.)
Talk radio reaches 50 million listeners per week. To the self-promoting villager class, Rush Limbaugh's 20 million listeners must be an object of extreme envy. By way of comparison, Chris Matthews reaches fewer than a million.
So I suspect there must be a level of respect involved. The villagers hear about Rush-inspired mob messaging from politicians on the receiving end. They internalized the Republican Party's appreciation for Limbaugh after the '94 elections. They've been buttressed by wave after wave of ditto-heads decrying their liberally biased reporting. Did I mention that Rush Limbaugh has 20 MILLION people listening to him every day?
So where to go when you want to know what the "little guy" is thinking? Well... there are more "little guys" listening to Sean and Rush and Glenn... If you want to know what they are thinking, they'll tell you. All you have to do is tune in and listen to the callers for a few minutes.
The second reason our villagers turn to talk radio for an understanding of the little guy is this: Sean and Rush and Glenn know their place. They don't want to be heard in the New York Times, they could care less about invading Little Timmy's space... They don't compete for their share of the cocktail weenies. No... these unwashed populists know their place. They generally keep to their own in the talk radio swamps. Of course, the networks may give them a show - (see Hannity and Colmes or Glenn Beck) - but everyone knows they aren't the "serious" shows, so they are no threat.
Bloggers, on the other hand... well, we expect accountability from the villagers. We think our criticisms should be addressed by those entrusted with the microphones. When we demonstrate prescience on the war or on the mortgage crisis or on the rank incompetence and corruption of the Bush junta... well, we feel like merit should be the criteria by which microphones should be elarged or diminished. After all, that's the way it works in the blogosphere...
Ah... but it the village bubble, that's just a bunch of silliness... such tripe!! And on one level, it is understandable. If they open the door to the unwashed masses of people that were fucking right about everything... well, in short order there won't be anyone left to validate their special status. The village would soon be overrun by a bunch of dirty fucking hippies.
Fuck 'em. They're getting old. Eventually merit does distinguish itself. We're the vanguard of the new media, but soon enough "new media" will be just another dusty old term. We'll be the village elders. Just please lord, don't let us be villagers.