amateur ramblings

i am not qualified to say this

  • Home Blog, bookmarks
  • About information about me
  • Things things I've done
  • Contact How to reach me

January 31, 2010
Posted by yaman

What public discourse? On corporate political speech

 

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning political speech restrictions on corporations and unions, a chorus of voices from the Democratic Party has attacked the decision. Notably, President Obama claimed in his State of the Union address that the ruling “will open the floodgates for special interests… to spend without limit in our elections.”

I think we are missing the point. The fact is that corporate, special, and powerful interests already have effective control of our political system. As Jon Stewart’s coverage of the State of the Union effectively shows, our public discourse is already in the shits. Fox offered only vapid criticisms, saying the President was not acting “presidential” — whatever the hell that means. MSNBC the most desperate praises; and CNN the most useless collection of raw data from Twitter. This is the discourse we desperately need to save, say the Democrats?

Perhaps it’s irresponsible for me to refrain from thinking about the merits of this decision–but it’s more important to look at our political system and public discourse before the ruling, which Democrats have treated as apocalyptic. For from being the valiant resistance, Democrats are actually part of the problem. Their monopoly on progressive, left, or liberal forces in the United States, whose leaders, no matter where they start, once filtered through the party machine, end up spouting meaningless make-believe like Obama on Palestine in Tampa, is part of the same special interest control that has incapacitated our country.

Last September, as the Court was hearing arguments on the case, Eliot Spitzer penned an op-ed calling for the regulation to be overruled. In his more persuasive points, Spitzer argued that the exclusion of “media companies” like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News from the restriction, was “a distinction that makes no logical sense” — especially since these are all channels with clear political agendas, with clear loyalty to the two-party system, if not to individual candidates, and with clearly little substance to contribute to our discourse. It’s hard to see how the systemic bias and inanity of the mainstream media (which is also corporate, by the way) is not part of the problem, especially if the proclaimed goal of such legislation is to facilitate a healthier public discourse.

I can’t help but think that there is a larger problem here. When we call for restrictions on corporate speech, we are missing a larger picture. My gut sense is that this call is informed by a patriarchal attitude towards the mythical “average American.” We place ourselves outside of this fictitious person (Joe Six-Pack, if you will) when we call for his protection, since we–unlike him–are apparently so well-informed and intelligent that we’re not susceptible to the same influence and mind-control as he.

This apparently patriarchal dilemma leads us to our real problem: sure, we can try all we want to patch the holes in this leaky dam of corporate rule, rushing from one plugged hole to the next one that bursts. None of these short-sighted regulations will address the larger issue of corporate power in this country, however. Surely we can’t believe that if corporations can’t spend money on explicit endorsements of political candidates 30 days before a federal election, that they will suddenly lose their stifling powers, thereby finally allowing our political creativity and freedom to flourish.

How can we buy such a fanciful idea when every aspect of our society, politically, economically, socially, and culturally, is pervaded by corporate influence? Our educational systems are designed and developed in coordination with corporate needs; our pop culture has become an industry; our streets are overwhelmed with corporate pollution in the forms of advertisements and billboards; even our humanitarian efforts are sponsored and guided by corporate money — and this one weak restriction, which does not even limit corporate donations to candidates (a separate issue from speech) is supposed to hold back the floodgates?

We cannot change the way media works if we rely on a vertical remedy, as the patriarchal approach attempts, hoping only to limit its excesses. We must adopt a more horizontal approach to inspire and spread the critical modes of thought that are necessary to rejuvenate our political culture. Underlying the notion that corporate money unduly “influences” people is the demeaning idea that Americans will gobble up whatever their televisions beam at them — if that is the case, we have to change the way people engage with media, as much as, if not more than, we need to change the media.

I empathize completely with the need for media (and politics!) that is more transparent, honest, and sophisticated. To that end, however, we have to fundamentally re-think and re-approach the issues. It’s myopic to understand the relationship between corporations and our political system against a First Amendment backdrop alone; that relationship is so imbricated in our society at large that focusing the discussion on some ghost ideal of free speech simply obscures the real power dynamics and issues at stake.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Speech Therapy – Post-Racial
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Health Care Crisis
Share

1 Comment

Posted Under Current Events

1 Trackbacks

  1. Pingback: What public discourse? On corporate political speech | KABOBfest on January 31, 2010

Leave a comment

Note: Your comment will not be approved if you use an invalid e-mail address.

* = Required

    • Links
    • Twitter
    • Favorites

    Divestment: from the campus to the streets

    Following a sharp increase in divestment efforts across North American college campuses last spring, this academic year promises an even greater number of initiatives, as well as resistance from university administrations to embrace the social justice movement. Mohammad Talaat comments for The Elect…

    Source: electronicintifada.net

    Share
    (Discussion)

    Organizing the battle for Berkeley: Peter Camejo

    Many people have the image of UC Berkeley during the 1960s as a hands-off, permissive university. That is not how it was. The regents and the top administrators at Berkeley, who controlled the university system, were generally pro-war right-wingers, clearly unconcerned with their violations of our B…

    Source: socialistworker.org

    Share
    (Discussion)

    Salahi: Anti-Semitism but not anti-hatred

    A Yale-sponsored conference about anti-Semitism hosted many blatantly anti-Arab and anti-Muslim speakers. It is unconscionable for a center meant to study one form of racism to indulge speakers who practice another.

    Source: www.yaledailynews.com

    Share
    (Discussion)

    Hamas, the I.R.A. and Us

    Both the Irish and Middle Eastern conflicts figure prominently in American domestic politics — yet both have played out in very different ways.

    A must read piece by Ali Abunimah in NYT.

    Source: www.nytimes.com

    Share
    (Discussion)

    Is Islamophobia sweeping the US?

    Source: www.youtube.com

    Share
    (Discussion)

    abc Primetime – How Muslims Are Treated In USA

    abc Primetime – How Muslims Are Treated In USA

    Source: www.youtube.com

    Share
    (Discussion)

    The baddest Apple in a rotten bunch

    To get an idea of the real reason why Apple has succeeded, it was only necessary to look below the May article hailing the company’s success on the front page of the Times business section. A second article reported on a spate of suicides in some Chinese sweatshops that was drawing attention to work…

    Source: socialistworker.org

    Share
    (Discussion)

    WikiLeaks in Baghdad | The Nation

    Immediately following the incident, McCord was threatened and mocked by his commanding officer for pulling the children from the van. He says his platoon leader “yelled at me that I need to quit worrying about these ‘motherfucking kids’ and pull security.” McCord later approached a staff sergeant an…

    Remember the “Collateral Murder” video leaked of the helicopter attack that killed a journalist? Here’s some insights from one of the soldiers at the scene and into the way it was handled by military personnel.

    Source: www.thenation.com

    Share
    (Discussion)

    Neutroniks ~ K-os

    Source: www.youtube.com

    Share
    (Discussion)

    Of Terrorist Babies and Dead Children Strategies

    Portraying “enemy” infants as proto-terrorists has obvious propaganda value: if what you thought was an innocent baby is in fact a weapon with a human face, you will be less likely to protest when it is killed. Murder becomes self-defence. Not only are we supposed to view ‘their’ children as latent …

    Source: www.dailykos.com

    Share
    (Discussion)

    RSS: Divestment: from the campus to the streets http://bit.ly/bibvuw

    follow me on
    twitter

    • 2007: The democratic overthrow and why we need it
    • 2007: Beyond Resistance
    • 2007: Are Hamas and Hizballah terrorist organizations?
    • 2008: Averting Contradiction
    • 2008: Who are academics, activists, and the media talking to?
    • 2007: Mapping Muslims: LAPD's Plan to Track Muslims
    • 2007: Confessions of a Madrasa Grad
    • 2007: The cycle of violence
    • 2007: Suhail Khan and anti-Muslim sentiment
    • 2007: Parades and Protests
  • Categories

    • Absurdities
    • Action Alerts
    • Asides
    • Code
    • Comment
    • Current Events
    • Journal
  •  

This site is using the Handgloves WordPress Theme
Designed & Developed by George Wiscombe

Subscribe via RSS