As the campaign now becomes media-centric the media shows no evidence of shame or contrition after misreading the New Hampshire Democratic race and sliming the motivations of voters to explain it. In fact, now that the horse race is on their turf they seem to be saying that it is their race to call and they say it is all about race and gender. Before we assume that this will poison the motivations of voters we should review recent history.

What do these data points have in common: the continued popularity of Clinton in the face of impeachment, Gore’s popular majority, the reversal of Bush’s popularity after 9-11 and the Democratic congressional victories in ’06?

They all were contrary to the dominant media narratives. When they were reported they were consistently downplayed and misinterpreted. One possible explanation of the surprise in New Hampshire is that some of the electorate was reacting against the media in it’s late swing to Clinton. One of the reflexes of the left is to assume that we can see through the biases and pettiness of the media but the electorate at large cannot. The evidence suggests that a majority is very skeptical of media narratives.

If you haven’t seen Adam Curtis’ 2002 four-hour BBC documentary “The Century Of The Self “ you can see it here; http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151

It is a sweeping view of the use of psychoanalytic theory and propaganda in capitalism’s march through the 20th century. The central figure is Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays, who published, popularized and utilized Freudian theory to promote corporate interests in America through public relations, a profession that he created. You don’t have to accept the foundations of Freudian theory or the theories of crackpots like Wilhelm Reich, Werner Erhard and Dick Morris to appreciate the vicious arc of commercial and political propaganda through American culture that Curtis portrays. It is not difficult to imagine the parallel story of the few families who learned the arts of rhetoric, persuasion and propaganda in the security services of the World Wars and the Depression and then used those skills to create the dominant firms of Madison Avenue which then helped create the booming demand economy that followed.

The logical conclusion to Curtis’ vision is that business will take over government because it is better at fulfilling the emotional needs of people. Bernays admitted as much in an interview when he was 100 years old and implied that he may have created something of a monster. But as compelling as this story is, it is too simplistic to explain the ability of humans to find new ways of being. We thrive because we don’t just adapt to a niche, we can adapt to almost any niche or we create our own niche. We are adaptation machines but we will not survive by trying to adapt to a fouled nest.

What happens to a population after being stewed in soup of propaganda, deceit and manipulation for over fifty years? Most adapt by developing immunity to the constant barrage of cultural cues and codes that encourage mindless consumption and conformity. Call it cynicism, skepticism or ironic distance. Those who don’t adapt develop metabolic syndrome and various psychiatric disorders that require medication and constant rhetorical reinforcement from El Rushbo.

Russert and Mathews and the rest will continue to pontificate and whine because some of the people can be entertained with divisive tripe some of the time and advertisers will pay big money for that demographic. But the century of the self is over when the self understands that the niche they are selling is a sewer. It is only natural to be skeptical of that.

At my caucus, Iowa City precinct 15, there were 213 participants in ’04 that selected 2 delegates for Kerry, 2 for Edwards, 2 for Dean and 1 for Kucinich. This year there were 340 participants selecting 4 for Obama, 2 for Edwards and 1 for Clinton. (Clinton was not even “viable” in the 1st round.) The precinct is middle class, Proctor and Gamble factory workers, AFSCME clerks and SEIU nurses, about 85% white, 5% black and 6% hispanic.

As with the rest of the state the Obama contingent had a majority of most sub-groups; all age groups, not just the 20-somethings, women, men and union members. In fact as a fellow caucus member pointed out it was the most diverse group. The Clinton group was primarily 50+yo women and the Edwards group was mostly 40-60yo men and women. From what I could tell the few blacks that were there were split between the three camps. The Obama group included the majority of independents, republicans who re-registered and new caucus-goers.

They didn’t look like revolutionaries; they looked like your average suburban crowd at the mall or the movies. It was Obama’s crowd and there was nothing racial about it, nothing.

After the caucus I went home knowing that Obama had won big and turned on the TV to watch his victory speech. The local stations had full speeches from Edwards, Clinton and Huckabee. Same with the networks but they had a minute of Obama’s speech. (I don’t get the cable news channels because of my high blood pressure) Finally I switched to PBS for their nightly broadcast of the BBC news and the BBC carried Obama’s full speech at the top of the news.

That gave me a clue to what Obama understands that the netroots doesn’t. He knows that a skeptical majority does not pay much attention to the corporate media and their obsessions with race and polarized politics. The netroots assumes that the media shapes public opinion but Obama knows that most folks have tuned it out. His appeal is less post-racial or post-political than post-cynical. Hope is the recovery of skepticism from cynicism. If that is too airy-fairy for you in practical terms it could mean increasing political participation by 50% or more and that is a pretty good start to forging a consensus to solve real problems

BTW I caucused for Edwards. I hope he stays in the race to make his points but I am now on the Hope Train.

There is one explanation for Obama's Social Security and health care positions; generational politics. Potential young voters believe that Social Security will not be there for them and they resent the fact that the deductions they see in their meager paychecks will fund feckless Boomer 30-year retirements. And why should they buy health insurance when again their payments just fund the health care of old drug-addled hippies. I work with college students and know that these sentiments are not unusual.

I want to believe that Obama’s soaring rhetoric is appealing to something more than that. Then he adds the stuff about not going back to the tired old politics of the 90s or the generational wars of the 60s. I am a Boomer and I have to admit that he does have a point, we are largely responsible for Clinton and Bush. I want this nightmare to be over too.

I am also an Iowa Democrat and a month ago I was undecided but confidant that this field would produce a Democratic President who, along with a Democratic Congress, could begin to repair the damage that Republicans have done here and abroad. Now I am not sure I want to replace the generational wars of the 60s with the generational wars of the new millenium. After the students go home for break I am hoping that Obama will convince me that he is bigger than that. If not at least Edwards and Dodd have defined the issue in a way that we all can support; checking corporate power and restoring the proper role of government.

Analysis deals with a set of knowns and ignores everything outside of the set.  Political discussions rarely venture outside of 'the frame' except to consider different ideological perspectives on the given set.  But once we consider the real context, what we do not know about a subject, we are confronted with the unspoken assumptions that we use to deal the unknown; religion, superstition, folklore, conventional wisdom and the prevailing cultural norms. When we take these values into analysis it becomes clear that the underlying currency of all cultural transactions is certainty regardless of whether it is based on evidence or belief.

There are two interconnected sets of certainties, an existential set of sensual boundaries and a cultural set of shared values.
Our shared cultural understandings mediate the uncertainties of our physical existance.  Without language we would all be autistic, unable to navigate between our needs and our limitations.

Do you percieve your past to have been chaotic or claustrophopic?  If it tended towards chaotic I would bet that you call yourself a republican and if it was claustrophobic I will bet you call yourself a democrat.  If I am wrong then perhaps you are a force of nature, not nurture.  My theory is that the experience of our past to a certain extent determines the narrative of how we mediate the unknown.  And our narrative is our politics.