The Obama White House counted on the ignorance and stupidity of the media

This is how the foreign-policy media is described by the would-be novelist who manages American foreign policy: “They literally know nothing.” You don’t know about this? Maybe it’s for the best if you want to continue to sleep peacefully through the night. Just read the rest below and think how much greater the depth and professionalism of a Trump White House will be. This may be the single most astounding revelation about the abysmal Obama administration to have surfaced, although no doubt more will be revealed as the years go by.

As with almost everything else of significance, if you haven’t been following this story, it’s only because it’s almost impossible to find in your local press. But it does start at The New York Times and is about someone named Ben Rhodes: The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru. So begin with this from the story:

The Boy Wonder of the Obama White House is now 38. . . .

As the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, Rhodes writes the president’s speeches, plans his trips abroad and runs communications strategy across the White House, tasks that, taken individually, give little sense of the importance of his role. He is, according to the consensus of the two dozen current and former White House insiders I talked to, the single most influential voice shaping American foreign policy aside from Potus himself.

And this is a bit more on who he is and what he does:

According to Denis McDonough, Obama’s chief of staff, who is known for captaining a tight ship, “I see it throughout the day in person,” he says, adding that he is sure that in addition to the two to three hours that Rhodes might spend with Obama daily, the two men communicate remotely throughout the day via email and phone calls. Rhodes strategized and ran the successful Iran-deal messaging campaign, helped negotiate the opening of American relations with Cuba after a hiatus of more than 50 years and has been a co-writer of all of Obama’s major foreign-policy speeches. “Every day he does 12 jobs, and he does them better than the other people who have those jobs,” Terry Szuplat, the longest-tenured member of the National Security Council speechwriting corps, told me. On the largest and smallest questions alike, the voice in which America speaks to the world is that of Ben Rhodes.

And here, just a bit more, to get the full flavour of what we are dealing with, that is, an absolute policy cypher who knows nothing about foreign policy but knows a lot about how to craft a media campaign to make the policy acceptable to the ignorant and gullible:

Like Obama, Rhodes is a storyteller who uses a writer’s tools to advance an agenda that is packaged as politics but is often quite personal. He is adept at constructing overarching plotlines with heroes and villains, their conflicts and motivations supported by flurries of carefully chosen adjectives, quotations and leaks from named and unnamed senior officials. He is the master shaper and retailer of Obama’s foreign-policy narratives, at a time when the killer wave of social media has washed away the sand castles of the traditional press. His ability to navigate and shape this new environment makes him a more effective and powerful extension of the president’s will than any number of policy advisers or diplomats or spies. His lack of conventional real-world experience of the kind that normally precedes responsibility for the fate of nations — like military or diplomatic service, or even a master’s degree in international relations, rather than creative writing — is still startling.

So we proceed through the article to find this first mention of his contempt for the media, which also comes with a kind of implied contempt for Obama himself:

When Rhodes joined the Obama campaign in 2007, he arguably knew more about the Iraq war than the candidate himself, or any of his advisers. He had also developed a healthy contempt for the American foreign-policy establishment, including editors and reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and elsewhere, who at first applauded the Iraq war and then sought to pin all the blame on Bush and his merry band of neocons when it quickly turned sour. If anything, that anger has grown fiercer during Rhodes’s time in the White House. He referred to the American foreign-policy establishment as the Blob. According to Rhodes, the Blob includes Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and other Iraq-war promoters from both parties who now whine incessantly about the collapse of the American security order in Europe and the Middle East.

But what has made this profile so infamous is this passage with its direct quotes:

Rhodes singled out a key example to me one day, laced with the brutal contempt that is a hallmark of his private utterances. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.

We ought to be terrified and sickened but we’re not because we find it so hard to believe that this is the way the US is governed. But it is. Sound policy criticism, no doubt on every aspect of the Obama administrations, is messaged to death which happens because the media is ignorant and incompetent. Once you know that, and combine it with Obama’s far-far-to-the-left beliefs, much of what you see around you falls into place.

You should, by the way, read the whole article linked to above. This is the world of virtual reality we are all living in.

And so it begins

The relentlessly anti-Trump media “analysis”, even here in Australia with virtually no one voting in the US election. The Murdoch Press is anti-Trump to the furthest extent it can go, and this is the supposed right-side of the media. The free, independent writers at The Australian will do what they are told, and what they will be told is that they are to do all they can to ensure Hillary becomes president. Today’s screed is by Caroline Overington, the Associate Editor in Sydney, who has written the first of what will no doubt be many similarly hysterical pieces by many others of their hysterical columnists. Her column is titled, US Election 2016: Donald Trump is rising on a wave of anger. It’s not very good, but at least she tried.

As absurd as that idea once seemed, Donald Trump is the last man standing, and therefore — bar the most extraordinary revolt — he’s the Republican candidate for president.

They have only themselves to blame, of course. The Republicans, I mean. They’ve had eight years to get their gear together, and this is what they’ve come up with.

A guy who got rich by putting up buildings shaped like special-edition Zippo lighters.

Such depth! Such analysis! You can feel the lifetime of study that has gone into this. And etc etc etc ad nauseam. Here, however, are the 16 top comments – I went all the way down to Number 16 because I liked it so much. And I left out not a single one. Quite a different perspective.

1) Overington’s insulting remarks and Greg Sheridan’s equally condescending piece today in some measure explain why Americans are lining up in droves to vote for Trump. Paid political commentators and their taxpayer-supported informants in Congress and the bureaucracy make up the establishment elites that detest the people who put them in office, pay their inflated salaries and keep journalists in jobs.

The members of this arrogant class believe they have a monopoly of knowledge to which their inferiors in the world of business, commerce and the professions, cannot hope to aspire, hence the spurious claim that Trump voters are uneducated and ignorant. It is anathema to them that ordinary people have the audacity to reject the candidate chosen for them by their superiors and vote instead for someone outside that narrow and insular elite group.

2)I cant wait for Trump to win, and then proceed to actually make a positive difference. Methinks journalist are frightened stiff he will succeed and make them irrelevant in policy direction and outcomes. If there is one grain of uniformity among journalists its that they think they know better and are better than the average joe/jill citizen. Time to kick the media to the curb

3) Bring it on. I have no idea what sort of a president he will make but I REALLY want to see the leftist backlash when he gets in. It’ll be the most entertaining thing we’ve seen in years!

4) The elites are desperate now. Overington is an intellectual wet lettuce.

5) It is articles like this that ensure Trump will be President. The media sneer and belittle him yet at the same time reveal what is actually wrong with society…that is the Media think only their opinion count and the voters are too stupid. By the way, Obama sure didn’t go to War – but he has stood by and allowed millions to die in Syria and create the worst humanitarian crisis since World War 2 – and yet you think this makes him great!!! Oh the humanity.

6) Oh, the lefties are getting so scared. Including the writer of this blog! The anxiety of the ABC interviewers is palpable, one could taste it. Go for it Donald . Stick it up the PC self-righteous bike riding, tofu sucking, sandal wearing idiots!

7) The more the chatterers complain, the more I like Trump. Anything is preferable to more of the same.

8) Not only hopelessly jaundiced as a piece of political journalism, is it possible that the chatterati have not yet realised it is quite precisely articles like these that have been fuelling the Trump phenomena? Are they seriously so clueless?

9) How does a piece like this end up in a quality paper like The Australian?

10) The writer is obviously looking for a job with the ABC and will produce this article in the job application.

11) If Socialists like you hate Trump he would have my vote.If only we had him here.

12) Keep up the sneering, the condescension and the mockery, Caroline. It only makes him stronger, and his supporters more resolute.

13) “Who ran because he thought it might be a good advertisement for his new casino.” Shallow and untrue. Trump set out to make a full, frontal attack on the political elites, both sides, and he’s succeeded. He also awakened the nation. The man, if elected a president, will morph into a statesman like person. He’s too intelligent and competent to not know that.

Remember, too, that when Ben Carsons endorsed him and was asked about all the ugly things he’d said about Trump, Carsons replied, “Oh, that’s just politics,” or words to that effect. Apply the same thinking to Trump’s outbursts.

14) You journalists just cannot stand it that people do not think as you tell them to.

15) “Obama (who, for the record, has endured not one scandal involving his marriage or his kids, nor embarked upon a single unnecessary war.)” that’s right, he just did NOTHING.

16) We should build a hall of journalism, wallpapered with all the articles saying Trump can’t win, leading to a feature about the election of the 45th President of the USA. It will be a tourist attraction, and a reminder to future generations that the job of journalists is to report the news, not make it up.

If this keeps up, The Australia will either have to stop allowing comments or find some other way to rebalance the opinion in a more correct direction.

Trump is also helping us work out which commentators should be ignored from now on and into the farthest future

Conservative is not defined as idiots who prefer a socialist of the opposite party in government than a person closer to their own perspective representing their own party if not every conservative box is ticked. This is George Will – quoted at Powerline – demonstrating that he is long past his use-by date:

Were [Trump] to be nominated, conservatives would have two tasks. One would be to help him lose 50 states — condign punishment for his comprehensive disdain for conservative essentials, including the manners and grace that should lubricate the nation’s civic life. Second, conservatives can try to save from the anti-Trump undertow as many senators, representatives, governors and state legislators as possible.

This man is a certifiable loony and to think he has been seen as a respected commentator for two generations. These are the same people who prefer Labor to the Libs if the more conservative party is led by someone on the left. Here is a reply to what Will has written from the Powerline comments section in relation to Trump. Something similar could be written about Australia. You know, like how perfection is the enemy of the good.

George Will is a prissy little girl in a bow-tie. He is the future of nothing. His views on Trump, like those of the worthless National Review, are foolish, exaggerated and wrong. The certitude folks express here about Trump losing 50 states. Jeez. Is that wishful thinking, or do you all have dead people whispering in your ears? I think it is just as likely Trump wins in a landslide.

I get the negatives on Trump. Who can miss them? He wears them like a billboard on his orange head. But stop dismissing Trump supporters or rather, voters who might vote for Trump over Hillary as idiots and uninformed imbeciles. That simply isn’t true, certainly not in all cases.

I tire too of the conservative purity test. Reagan granted amnesty to illegals, got Marines killed in Beirut because at the time he was as ignorant of the middle east as Obama is today; Nixon invented the EPA; Romney was never a conservative; George W. Bush? One of America’s worst presidents. I get that he’s a nice guy. He’s also a Christian proselytizer, who looked in Putin’s eyes, and saw his soul (Putin gave it up long ago), found democracy in the beards of tribal crazies, got us into two wars he managed to lose, passed a prescription drug benefit for old white people that still costs billions. Did I mention that he spent money like a sailor in a whorehouse?

Conservatives? Really? Conservatives have done NOTHING in almost 60 years to curb the growth of government. Trump is no damn white knight. But right now America is run by a big-eared ignorant ass, who gets his advice from people of color Marxist ideologues he met in Chicago or college, and twenty-something pinheads who never worked outside of government.

On his worst day, Trump would be better than them. Try looking at it this way. Cruz thinks the system works, that he can fix it. You want idiocy? There it is. The system can’t be changed. It will roll along, getting bigger and bigger and more inept until it caves in.

Trump may even be the only man in the race who understands this. And he will in no way, no matter what he does, be worse that pompous self-absorbed ass Americans put two times into the white house.

The Daily Bolt

This is quite worth watching, and the thing is that I imagine there will be many similar excerpts from The Daily Bolt that will be worth watching day after day right through to the election. Not being among those who take pleasure in seeing the Libs crash and burn with Malcolm at the helm, this editorial comment on Turnbull v Abbott fills me with great foreboding. But for a change, there is the kind of feedback being run at those narrow-cast Members of Parliament who took their lead from the ABC while ignoring the people who actually wished to see the Coalition succeed. I fear there will be a good deal of repenting in leisure among the 54.

The Daily Bolt

This is quite worth watching, and the thing is that I imagine there will be many similar excerpts from The Daily Bolt that will be worth watching day after day right through to the election. Not being among those who take pleasure in seeing the Libs crash and burn with Malcolm at the helm, this editorial comment on Turnbull v Abbott fills me with great foreboding. But for a change, there is the kind of feedback being run at those narrow-cast Members of Parliament who took their lead from the ABC while ignoring the people who actually wished to see the Coalition succeed. I fear there will be a good deal of repenting in leisure among the 54.

Ruining everything he touched

I’ve already dealt with this delusional comment from Obama here but I come back to it because it is so repulsive and also because it has been raised in a different way by Tom Blumer, Obama Takes Credit For ‘Saving the World Economy From a Great Depression’. This is Obama laying down his legacy, his trail of achievements that the mendacious press and academic enablers can go on about in the future. You have to therefore fortify yourself against the legacy-intentions of this fantastically incompetent narcissistic buffoon who has ruined everything he has touched:

After setting up the conditions in February 2009 for an extended recession and historically weak recovery in the U.S., the idea Obama went to Europe two months later in April and then began “saving the world” is a sick joke only gullible, economics-ignorant reporters and leftists could possibly believe. Sadly, they’re the ones who still primarily control the news and other key institutions, so we’ll probably be hearing this crap for years on end — just like we’ve had to put up with the fiction that Franklin Delano Roosevelt saved the country from the Great Depression in the 1930s. The truth is that he lengthened it by seven years.

And the seven years are only if we stop today. The Japanese “lost decade”, built out of the same policies, has continued for more than twenty years and shows no evidence of coming to an end any time soon. Obama’s taking credit for the achievements of others was also noted by Victor Davis Hanson in 2014:

Listen to the president and one would think that he was in office during the financial crisis that began on September 15, 2008. For the nth time, Obama reminded the nation on 60 Minutes of the financial meltdown he inherited. That is his usual way of suggesting to the American people that they could hardly hope for normal times after six years of his own governance. In truth, Obama entered office on January 20, 2009 — over four months after the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that precipitated a general financial meltdown.

One would not expect Obama to fault past liberal congressional intervention in the financial sector that in large part forced the issuance of subprime risky mortgages, much less the earlier deregulation of the financial industry under Bill Clinton that helped fueled the rampant speculation. The videos of the sad congressional banter about supposedly insensitive questioning of the duplicitous and corrupt Fannie head Franklin Raines, or the self-important bluster of former Rep. Barney Frank, make a good 10-minute tutorial on the meltdown — namely how Wall Street sharks, hand-in-glove with liberal congressional operatives and Clinton appointees, offered federally “guaranteed” mortgages to those who had no ability to pay them back, fueling a phony real estate boom and overvalued stock market.

Obama might at least admit that when he entered office the panic had largely passed. The tools needed to deal with it that he embraced had months earlier been implemented by someone else. Indeed, Obama was president for just a few months before the recession that began in December 2007 ended in June 2009 — well before the effect of any of the policies, good or bad, could have taken effect.

Our current economic mess — the worst post-recession recovery since World War II, more people out of work than when Obama took office, a steady decline in real family income, massive new debt — is largely a result of his own policies of five consecutive $1 trillion deficits, the Obamacare catastrophe, new burdensome and capricious regulations, near-zero interest rates, and the anti-business psychological climate brought on by constant hectoring of the “you did not build that” and “at a certain point you’ve made enough money” sort.

The thing about the lying, however, is that we have no corrective for policies that don’t work since the common view promoted across the media and by economists is that the stimulus has actually had a beneficial effect. So why not keep on keeping on? How big a crash does there have to be before we abandon the idea that government spending can lead us into recovery?

The media and political lying

We all know this, but what is anyone going to do about it? What can anyone do about it?

Poll: Vast majority of Americans don’t trust the news media

We all lie, scientists say, but politicians even more so

The cynicism of the media-favoured side of the political class knows no bounds because they know there is nothing you can do and no matter what you know and believe, they have the power and you don’t.

A case study in media deceit

For the history of this bizarre attempt at a set up, you can go here. If you would like a longer, more extended version of these events, Stefan Molyneux is the one for you.

But really, this is the central issue: you cannot trust the media to tell you the truth. The story that would have been the final nailed down version would have been Fields’ version of having been thrown to the ground by some thuggish Trump employee. It is only because the evidence has been so overwhelming showing she is a complete liar that his critics – and they were both Democrat and Republican – have reluctantly had to back down. Open and shut in this case. In the others, you are with certainty being manipulated and your views shaped by a media with a very left-of-centre perspective who are personally opposed to everything Donald Trump stands for: a strong America, with closed borders who will defend the interests of the West against all comers. He may not have the nuance of running for office exactly down pat, but he would be a formidable president in the sense that he could and would get things done.

On the road with Tony Abbott

That’s our former Prime Minister in a karaoke moment in the middle of a bike ride through rural New South Wales. The title of the video is itself a mark of the kinds of fools who cannot recognise genuine goodness in people but prefer the fake socialist variety where no one does anything personally but leaves it to the government to tax others to do what they would never do themselves. The caption that comes with the vid:

Tony Abbott belts out karaoke in a wife-beater singlet singing John Denver classic ‘Country Roads’ with radio presenter Wes Heather.

Such disgusting superiority by people who have nothing to offer the world but their own warped opinions.

Writing in code

One of the great philologists used to argue that you could not read the ancient Greek writers without appreciating that it was more than their lives were worth to actually say what they meant. Now we are unlikely to boil you in oil, but still, you might lose your writing gig at National Review if you said what you really meant. Take Victor Davis Hanson, who begins and ends his column on White versus White America, with the standard demand that we be spared a Donald Trump as President, but then says this in the middle:

Trump is not so much appealing to the ethnic prejudices of the white poor and working class, or playing on their perceived resentments of the Other. It’s more that he, a crass member of the elite (“It takes one to know one”), is resonating with their deep dislike of the hypocrisies of the white elite, both Republican and Democratic. Middle-class whites should be outraged at the cruel and gross manner in which Trump insulted John McCain and Megyn Kelly, but they are not. Perhaps, if asked, they would prefer to have the latter pair’s money and power if the price was an occasional little slapdown from Donald Trump. What they see as outrageous is not Trump’s crude “Get out of here” to Spanish-language newscaster Jorge Ramos, but rather the multimillionaire dual-citizen Ramos predicating his con on a perpetual pool of non–English speakers, many of whom have broken federal immigration law in a way a citizen would not dare break the law on his tax return or DMV application. For an angry Arizonan, ridiculing “low energy” Jeb is not as crude as Jeb’s own crude “act of love” description of illegal immigration. An act of love for exactly whom?

What is the perceived white elite? Perhaps a Hillary Clinton raking in $300,000 per half hour at UCLA or shaking down Wall Street for $600,000, even as she pontificates on privilege and the dangers of racism (obviously embraced, in her view, by whites other than those of her class). Or a Chelsea Clinton deprecating the attraction of riches, as her Wall Street internships and marriage perpetuate the Clinton model of pay-for-play enrichment — all to be camouflaged by professions of progressive empathy. Or an elite media that snores when an ex-president of the United States jumps on the private plane of convicted child-assaulter Jeffrey Epstein for a trip to his fantasy island. Or a former anti-government “conservative” congressman who hangs around Washington and mysteriously becomes a multimillionaire leveraging his past government service. Our popular culture is one of Pajama Boy, Mattress Girl, and the whiny, nasal-toned young metrosexual with high-water pants above his ankles and horn-rimmed glasses who “analyzes” on cable news. Is it any wonder that millions sympathized with the heroism of Benghazi’s middle-class defenders rather than with the contortions of the far better-educated, smoother, more sensitive, and wealthier Rhodes scholar Susan Rice, novelist Ben Rhodes, or former First Lady Hillary Clinton?

Whom do these sometimes incoherent Trump supporters likely despise? I would wager anyone who has never been sideswiped in a hit-and-run by an illegal-alien driver but lectures others on why “illegal alien” is a racist term; anyone who has lucrative government employment and whose job description does not exist in the poorer-paying private sector; any politician or his appendage who somehow became quite wealthy on a GS salary in Washington; anyone who makes more than $50 an hour and lectures others on why the country is going broke and must tighten its belt; anyone who sermonizes on free trade and knows few people who ever lost jobs through outsourcing; anyone who freely uses the word “white” in a way and context that he would never use “black” or “Latino”; or anyone who hires someone else to clean his house, watch his kids, and take care of his yard, and then lectures others on their illiberality.

Or to put it this way, whom do these sometimes very coherent Trump supporters likely despise? I’ll leave it to you to work it out.