Libertarian Librarian

That's the classic trick, or loaded, question-- if you answer "yes", it implies that you used to beat your wife, while if you answer "no", then you are still beating your wife. And I had a serious "Have you stopped beating your wife?" moment a few days ago when I read tc's response to my post regarding a DailyKos poll that boggled my mind.

The poll [in response to the tremendous hue and cry over inaccuracies in "The Path to 9/11"] asked which was a greater threat to democracy, Corporate media consolidation or terrorists, and fully 70% of respondents voted for Corporate media consolidation. I was, and still am, stunned by that result.

tc, apparently agreeing with the 70% in fear of Corporate media consolidation (I keep capitalizing Corporate, btw, because that's how the poll creator did it-- Corporate got a Capital C, but terrorists did not warrant a capital T. Telling in and of its ownself.), responded with this:

Nick, are you saying that American Democracy is so weak, so fragile, that the sporadic actions of small, ill-equipped militant fanatics are realistically going to topple it?

So, if I answer "Yes" I'm granting that American Democracy is weak and fragile, and if I answer "No", then I'm tacitly admitting that Corporate media consolidation is more dangerous to American Democracy. Have I stopped beating my wife yet?

The basic premise is wrong, and therein lies the problem. No, I don't think that American Democracy is so weak and fragile that the sporadic actions of small, ill-equipped militant fanatics are realistically going to topple it. But neither do I think that the terrorists are ill-equipped nor their actions sporadic. 9/11/2001 should have driven that point home so hard and so painfully that nobody would ever be able to believe that terrorists with no compunction, no mercy, no regard for their own, much less others, lives could be dismissed as "small, ill-equipped militant fanatics".

And that was without true weapons of mass destruction.

In the DailyKos world, the Disney Corporation is a bigger threat to our existence than fanatics with designs on attaining nuclear weapons and no qualms about using them on as many infidels-- Israeli or American infidels, preferably, but Europe, Asia or Australia will do in a pinch-- as possible.

Now, I'll grant you that there is an awful lot of the same old same old on TV and in the theaters these days, and I'll grant you that it would be better if there were more media outlets available for disparate voices to be heard. But considering that The Daily Show, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, etc., etc. are still on the air, and considering that satirical shows like South Park and the Mind of Mencia are still poking fun at everybody and everything, I don't really think Corporate media consolidation is going to bring us down any time soon. By all means, monitor it, keep people aware of it, contact your legislators and voice your concerns.

But.

Do I think that attacks on our soil or on the soil of other democracies and repulics, against people with no connection to anything military, political or religious, are a threat to our democracy? Yeah, I do. Do I think a few nuclear bombs detonated in New York, LA, and D.C. will threaten our democracy a little bit more than a screenplay written by a guy who knows Rush Limbaugh? Yeah, I do. Do I think that genocidal massacres in Africa, and beheadings in Iraq and suicide bombings in Israel are a threat to democracy? Yeah, I do.

And here's the ironic twist-- part of the reason that terrorists ARE such a threat to democracy is precisely because of a point that seems so near and dear to liberals. Near and dear to me, as well, for that matter. A natural reaction to terrorist activity is to crack down on individual freedoms-- to crank up the Big Brother aspects of government to increase security. Above and beyond the threat of death and destruction, terrorism breeds insecurity and fear, and a democracy does not do well under those conditions.

Which is why I think President Bush was right to take the fight to the terrorists, why I think he was right to attempt to plant democracy in the Middle East, and why I am appalled by the actual means he has chosen to accomplish those ends. Do I think that the current administration's reliance on fear is a threat to democracy? Yeah, I do that, too. But that does not mean that the terrorists-- you know, the guys that started this whole mess?-- are any less of a threat or any less responsible. It just means that we have to keep our own government in balance lest we lose many or all of the freedoms were purportedly are fighting the terrorists to keep as our own.

So, let me pose my own "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question to tc and all the other DailyKos people who are so terrified of Corporate media consolidation:

tc, are you saying that four hours of inaccurate television, that didn't even make the week's twenty most viewed shows and which was seen by less than 7 million Americans, is more of a threat to American Democracy than terrorist groups that have already killed thousands of your fellow citizens and whom are the direct cause of the Patriot Act, NSA wire taps, and the Iraq War?

Labels: War on Terror