Washington Post Gives Op-Ed Column to Right-Wing Bush 43 Speechwriter To Attack Biden As "Hypocrite"
Washington Post Gives Op-Ed Column to Right-Wing Bush 43 Speechwriter To Attack Biden As "Hypocrite"
This is another case of so-called "mainstream" but ostensibly liberal- leaning media actively enabling MAGA, legitimizing the extremist GOP, and doing it all in the name of being "fair and balanced." Apparently they feel an obligation to present both fact-based reality, and as well lies, fabrication, disinformation, and half-truths, giving "both sides" equal weight.
The Op-Ed in question is from Marc Theissen of the libertarian think tank American Enterprise Institute, which is financed by the usual stable of anti-government fascist Billionaires intending to obliterate government regulation and the social safety net.
Conservative spinmeister Thiessen attacks Biden as a hypocrite over his speech in Philadelphia warning of the danger to democracy represented by the extremist MAGA Republicans. What might be hypocritical about that, you might be asking?
Thiessen cites case after case of the Democratic Party engaging in a national pattern of "gaming" the Republican primaries by pouring tens of millions of dollars donated by Democrats to boost and help the most extreme MAGA candidates win. Ostensibly this strategy is based on the presumption that the more extreme the Republican, the more easy they are to defeat in the general election. And Theiessen, making sure all of his bases are covered, cites multiple examples in various locales in which the Democrats did this, in effect, elevating MAGA candidates to nominees, giving them prominent exposure and legitimacy.
Thiessen then asks the question, "If Biden is so down on MAGA Republicans as he says, why has his Party been helping them win elections"? And the problem here is that all of his "facts" are true and verifiable. Every last one of them. And here, right here lies the failure and fraud of relying on "fact checkers" to determine what are the standards of truth in both politics and journalism.
We have thus a classic textbook example of how it is possible to weave a fabric of lies and half-truths, while presenting arguments grounded in 100% verifiable facts. This my friends is how we become suckers for disinformation, and are played like pieces on a chessboard.
What is the basis of this artfully constructed lie, based on "verifiable facts?" The lie is in the false premise underlying his argument, which is never made explicit, but is the foundation upon which his article is built. It is the premise which people just assume is true, and because it is unsaid, rarely think to question.
The falsehood is the assumption that the President "runs" the Democratic Party, and that their actions are rooted in his explicit directives. So, we are presented with the syllogism, "because President Biden runs Democratic Party strategy, and the Democratic Party through their funding are helping MAGA candidates win elections, he is therefore a hypocrite." Simple. Logical. Yet, a big fat lying lie. But one that too many people buy into because of the decline of critical thinking in our population, which increasingly cannot see through such deceptions.
Those who have read some history or participated in politics, or who for other reasons of background in developing their judgment, know why this is a lie. A serious study of the history of the Presidency illuminates how and why every President has had to contend with factional opposition from within their own party, due to the influence of "special interests." The points of contention vary, from ideology, to personal rivalries, to the simple factors of competition between powerful financial interests.
Is there anyone, for example, who has seriously studied the FDR Presidency that can argue that he was totally in charge of Democratic Party campaign strategy as President? (Up until the War began of course, when most everyone fell in line)
The reality is that FDR was always seen as a Presidential contender, especially when he bounced back from Polio and became Governor of New York. However he ran as a "dark horse" candidate, an outsider of sorts against the Democratic Party's machine, then in the grip of pro-fascist financier J.P Morgan. Morgan had anointed New York City Mayor, the Wall Street friendly Al Smith as the future nominee. FDR came from almost nowhere at the Democratic Convention of 1932 to seize the nomination from Smith, and the rest was history. (Remember it was Morgan who financed and organized the infamous "Business Plot," The conspiracy to overthrow FDR by force and install a fascist military junta in his place)
FDR himself had been a long time leader of the Democratic establishment, serving as Navy Under Secretary under Woodrow Wilson, and was then judged to be a reliable member of the old moneyed establishment which ran the Party. Then he contracted Polio, almost died, and was left permanently disabled. Roosevelt during his recovery had a conversion of sorts, in which his experiences in Warm Springs while rehabilitating enabled him to access qualities of empathy in himself for those who suffer, and compassion for the downtrodden. In politics, that made him an outlier, or a loose cannon. This epiphany, if you will, along with the powerful influence on him of Eleanor Roosevelt, enabled him to become a trailblazer in the Democratic Party in championing the cause of organized labor, the poor and indigent, and to the degree possible African American Civil Rights.
This personal and political transformation put FDR into a direct conflict with the Democrats backed by Wall Street, and the Southern States "Dixiecrats" of the Jim Crow era. And the Democratic Party had for a time a civil war, in which his program was resisted not only by Republicans and the conservative Supreme Court, but from within his own supposed team.
FDR's genius, aided greatly by Eleanor and Labor Secretary Frances Perkins enabled his administration to legislate and enact the New Deal in the face of external and internal opposition. He broke ranks by publicly attacking Wall Street and "Hooverism" for causing the Great Depression through their speculative looting of the economy, and their attempts to blame labor for the depression. And through Machiavellian maneuvering, he brought the Southern Democrats on board with the New Deal by finessing their leadership in a variety of ways which we know.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/360628convention-dem-ra.html
Did FDR determine the national candidates slate in the 1934 midterms and it's campaign strategy from top to bottom? In part? Not at all? I think a serious study of the matter will show that the Democratic Party continued to be a factional mess until wartime. Had Senator Huey Long of Louisiana lived, he might have hijacked the 1936 Democratic nomination as an example of this factional warfare.
FDR's Presidency was by no means an isolated case when you look at it. Read about Lincoln's conflicts with the Radical Republicans over slavery, Reconstruction and so forth. Look also at how he, like FDR was a dark horse candidate who unexpectedly came from the back of the pack to win the 1860 Republican nomination.
This is the reality of the history of Presidential party politics which author Theissen in his dishonest, sophistical and bad faith manipulation of "the facts" omits by design, and uses to brand President Biden as a hypocrite. The unspoken and rarely questioned false premise which underlies his presentation of "verifiable facts" is how they sell lies under the cover truthful information. And the Washington Post lacks the moral integrity to challenge Theissen's lies by omission, and prints this pile of rubbish for all to ingest, giving the pathological liars of MAGA talking points for their war against democracy.
The question of why factions of today's Democratic leadership are engaged in such thoughtless and destructive perfidy is a question for another article, aspects of which I've written about before. The Democratic Party, like that from the FDR era has it's Wall Street faction. To believe otherwise is a fantasy ridden delusion that we have a unified team which is mobilizing against Trump and MAGA, and is fully loyal to the President and his agenda. We do not. This is one of if not the most complicating factors in the success of our campaigns, and it is critical that as we are organizing over the coming period to have our eyes wide open to this reality.
In the meantime, with this little example, you now have the advantage of new insight for dismantling the campaign of lies and half-truths presented houly by the MAGA pundits. This is how they lie. And this is how we prove it. But, it means that to fight it, you have to do the work, meaning reading the history of our nation's Presidents and the various struggles they engaged in over policy. You'll need more of that to be effective in winning people over. And you have to have developed judgment enough to discern truth from falsehood when it comes enshrouded in a fog of apparently truthful facts, and not live on the surface. That takes not only work, but passion. And a playful inclination to cause mischief and "good trouble" for our adversary.
On that note, have fun!
