Texas Blue Mailbag: Week of 8/26/2007

We are asked some reasonably complex questions. George gives taut, funny, noir answers while I take my usual lengthy path to delivering replies.

NYJoe asks:

in what manner, if any will there be recourse for the american public regarding the various ostensibly unlawful manipulations and transgressions of policy and process that the current administration has utilized?

George answers:

Election Day is November 4, 2008.

Samn asks:

Josh - Why do American citizens still believe the information they are fed by the government to squabble and argue about is anything close to the actual truth of the situation?

Josh replies:

Because we want to believe, I suppose. I think there's a healthy skepticism at work these days in people that pay attention, but most of America will continue to plod along until their money or HDTV are affected by government policies.

Take the news, for example. We've all been reading the news for many years, and it doesn't occur to most people throughout most of their lives that, by the time something gets on the air or in the paper, it has usually gone through 4-6 people and been vetted, cut, considered, pondered, edited, and altered. Every single one of those people have their own biases, and yet the root of each story — that something happened — is usually communicated. With the government it is not all that different, except news from the government is always shaped the way the government wants to shape it. And then it is reported by people who shape it the way they want to shape it according to their own goals and feelings and then you consume it. If you pay attention and have intellectual curiosity about your government, you apply your biases, weigh the information against what you know or what you think you know, and maybe even ask a question or two. If you are not intellectually curious, you don't, and you probably largely accept whatever happens to be on TV at the moment as fact.

So, more directly to your question, why do people believe what they are told? I think it is because we only know what we're told, and so it is incumbent upon each individual to draw conclusions based on what they are told, what else they have heard or read, and to get some sort of an aggregate with that information and what they believe or know to be true. It isn't just Americans that buy into what their government tells them, by the way. I would argue that a lot of people in post-industrial societies are like that, although voter turnout numbers in many foreign countries would imply either an increased sense of vested interest or a higher level of that aforementioned curiosity.

Matt Gaffney asks:

Is the vice-president a part of the executive branch?

George answers:

Yes.
(What, are you guys just looking for the one-word answers, or what?)

OK, OK, I'll give you a little more. The Office of the Vice President falls under the Executive Office of the President, so the VP is part of the executive branch. He also, as one of the roles of his office, gets to chair the U.S. Senate. And while we're at it, George W. Bush gets to command the military; that doesn't mean he gets to wear a uniform. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the Senate during impeachment hearings for presidents. The system of checks and balances means that folks in a particular branch of the federal government will get to have their fingers in other branches' pies. That doesn't make it their pie.

OldPatriot says:

Hello,

I'm a new subscriber -- 24 hours new -- and love finding anything blue in Texas!

I grew up in Angleton, my relatives go all the way back to Stephen F. Austin's days, and I left the state in 1983 partly because of the political climate, even before Delay, Rove, W, and their crowd did a number on it. I will be following your blog closely.

Since I'm new, this may be ground you've recently plowed, but I'd love to see you cover Progressive Radio and the almost total lack of same in Texas. Air America has a great station (KOKE) in blue Austin, but they just lost the one in Corpus. Ed Schultz (Jones Network) is on at night in Lampasas on KCYL. And as far as I can find... that's it!

There are some great and entertaining Progressive talkers out there, and I'll bet you guys know where and who could begin some changes for the better.

I'll be watching,
OldPatriot

Josh replies:

Welcome, sir. Glad to have you.

I've often wondered why liberal or progressive talk radio sort of stumbled out of the gate, and I haven't really ever been able to put my finger on it. Maybe the market for such a thing wasn't nearly as wide open as everyone assumed, and NPR was a silent juggernaut, eating market share that no expected. Maybe liberals in general are turned off by the right-wing talk radio model of bile-production and left-wing talk radio, even though it was usually right, felt wrong. Or maybe the guys running the boat administratively at Air America just couldn't get it together. Ed Schultz works because I think he appeals to the audience that enjoys political talk radio but are not Republicans.

So you've got Ed, and you've got NPR, and Air America isn't totally down for the count yet, but those are the only outlets I know of, other than snazzy internet podcasts.

I think a real demonstrable change in the thinking about progressive radio will be necessary for it to achieve mass appeal. Either the format, or the message, or the marketing will require some retooling before you can spin the dial and hear a pervasive progressive presence.