HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Looks like today may be the day of the meta-narrative discussion. I started in this direction with a discussion of media bias, but after coming across this post by Chris Bowers, and this one from Glenn Greenwald, it occurs to me that there might be something bigger going on here.

Instead of simply complaining about the bias of big media, people in the progressive blogosphere are really starting to both analyze and understand it on a very deep and sophisticated level. Here's an excerpt from Greenwald:

Any argument for more war is, in the eyes of the Washington Establishment, always, by definition "serious." We invaded a country, unleashed the greatest strategic disaster in our history, wrought complete chaos and anarchy in that country, have squandered hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of lives, and now some want to send still more troops and escalate what we have been doing? That's a very "serious argument."

And, conversely, the only non-serious argument is leaving, ending the war. Thus, Hiatt leaps to assure his fellow noblemen that his meek and respectful questioning of "surging" does not mean he has joined with those loser, frivolous hippies: "The constructive alternative to a surge is not the abandonment of Iraq." No, perish the thought. It would be unconscionable -- and completely non-serious -- to "abandon" Iraq just as we are doing such good for it.

Beyond the awarding of the trite "seriousness" label, Hiatt (being the Conventional Wisdom font that he is) also recites a growing myth that is starting to take root -- namely, that there is something "courageous" about John McCain's defense of the war and his call for more troops. This is the type of mindless tripe that becomes True in Washington simply by virtue of being repeated enough times by the right people.

Here's my question: Now that we understand this, what are we going to do about it?

If I had the answer to that question....