Bob Somerby has been howling at the media for years. He's written about 5 columns per week since 1998 at
The Daily Howler, and he posted other writing at a now-defunct site. That's a lot of media criticism.
Mr. Somerby's June 26 column begins with another dissection of a Russert performance, but the impetus for the best part of today's essay is Sunday's discussion of Eric Boehler's book, "Lapdogs", at firedoglake.
Somerby isn't a bashful writer, and his points are made emphatically, if usually politely. Some of his thinking has been implicit, however. In this post, he pulls together his thoughts in response to a questioner at firedoglake.
LINDYH: I too would like to know why. What was there about Gore that the press hated? Was it his southern accent? Why dislike Clinton? I don't get it, and I wonder if it's really the grunt reporters or their editors who make these judgements.
Somerby's first two points address corporatism and pressure to pad the bottom line, and the personal values of chit-chat artists who become multimillionaires. These comments seem thoughtful and sensible to me.
His third point is either weird or jaw-droppingly insightful. I find it very forceful. Judge for yourself:
Battles of the boomers. Clinton and Gore were the first boomer-aged, White House-level pols to be covered by boomer-aged reporters. Over the years, it has been hard to avoid the thought that their generational primacy--and their intellectual abilities--were resented by their less capable peers in the press. As a general matter, our boomer-aged pundits are quite unimpressive--but they're also rich and famous celebrities, with all the ego that implies. They have endlessly criticized Gore as "the smartest kid in the room," and they've displayed a general tone of contempt for Clinton and Gore's intellectual accomplishments. By contrast, boomer-aged Bush is an intellectual slacker--and boomer-aged reporters have seemed to find a more comfortable fit with his slacker traits. In this analysis, Bush is the Prince Charles of his cohort--a relatively unimpressive chap who reached his high post through inheritance. Boomer reporters don't have to resent him. It's his very lack of distinction which puts boomer scribes at their ease.
What do you think? I think this way of looking at things might explain a lot.
Mr. Somerby continues with a fascinating riff about tribalism:
Increasingly, the GOP is the tribe of the upper-class, older American order--and the Democrats are the tribe of everyone else. Everyone who doesn't fit in the old order has found their way to the Dem coalition. The Dems are the party of The Other--of the "lower-class;" of racial minorities; of gays; of uppity women. The Republicans are the party of the traditional upper-class ideal--and of all those who will swear allegiance to that orders' values. This does not mean that Dems are always right--or that Reps are always wrong--about issues involving class and race. It does mean that the parties represent two different tribes--and that many people align themselves based on tribal impulses.
Doesn't that answer a lot of questions about so many of my fellow Americans who seem to vote against their own interests?
I admire Somerby's ability to be witty and literary even when he is most exercised. The June 26 column isn't funny, but he does quote Homer:
Lost to the clan,
lost to the hearth, lost to the old ways, that one
who lusts for the horror of war with his own people...
How ironic is that? In our modern American community, the GOP and President George W. Bush have inverted and perverted that quote from "The Iliad." Meanwhile...
To the extent that Major Dems like Clinton and Gore speak for "the people, not the powerful"--to the extent that they "feel the pain" of working people--they have declared themselves "lost to the clan." The modern upper-class tribal consensus is embarrassed by--and uninterested in--the problems of people who may need Medicare, or Medicaid, or Social Security. Ruling classes have always tended to look down on the needs of the great unwashed. And, by virtue of their vast salaries, opinion leaders in the modern press corps are now part of a high ruling class. That doesn't make them bad people--though some of them may be.
Mr. Somerby diffidently opines that this essay might be less clear than usual because he's playing on uncustomary lanes. I think he knocked down all 10 pins.