4 ms·

That's what it looks like to a "far-right" isolationist, too. If you hadn't noticed, Trump has been trying to extricate the US from conflict in Syria, with the

That's what it looks like to a "far-right" isolationist, too. If you hadn't noticed, Trump has been trying to extricate the US from conflict in Syria, with the media nearly unanimous in opposing this goal. US news media is in fact generally pro-war and pro-globalization, and these are appreciable agendas which are only deemed "centrist" because they are shared by the two major parties. Outlets like CNN closely reflect the consensus of the governing elite, even when it is quite markedly out of step with the prevailing opinion of the public on any given issue. Labeling positions which don't enjoy the endorsement of state-affiliated institutions as "extremist" is a common tactic to solidify control of the discourse. This comment reads to me as nothing more than naked worship of power.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Trump has been trying to extricate the US from conflict in Syria, with the media nearly unanimous in opposing this goal. The media, the left, and the remotely sane parts of the right are largely opposed to the specific mechanism; very few are opposed to the (purported) goal of extricating the US from the conflict in Syria.
- neetdeth 8y ago
  The specific mechanism of withdrawing US forces from the area? I seem to recall a lot of hand-wringing from neocons about specific withdrawal strategies from Iraq, but the bottom line was that Americans would remain in Iraq. You can't say oh, I'd like to extricate myself from this conflict, but also force a specific outcome. That's having your cake and eating it.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > The specific mechanism of withdrawing US forces from the area? The timing, manner, and surrounding supporting activity (or lack thereof) of that withdrawal, yes. > You can't say oh, I'd like to extricate myself from this conflict, but also force a specific outcome. Perhaps, but you absolutely can choose the manner in which you attempt to extricate yourself from a conflict with an eye toward the likely impacts of that extrication.
    - neetdeth 8y ago
      We could quite literally reparent your comment under a discussion about Iraq circa 2007 and it would not look out of place coming from a neoconservative. And no wonder -- those are the same people who now form the "remotely sane parts of the right," according to the so-called left. > The timing, manner, and surrounding supporting activity Presumably the timing is too soon, the supporting activity not vigorous enough, etc, etc. Let's kick the can down the road another year, surely our underspecified war aims will be closer to fruition.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > We could quite literally reparent your comment under a discussion about Iraq circa 2007 and it would not look out of place coming from a neoconservative. No one had a plan to criticize in 2007. If you mean 2009-11, sure. Or, earlier in the same conflict, in 2004 from much of the Left and non-neocon Right against the Bush Admin in discussing how the neoconservatives desire to disentangle rapidly after the defeat of Iraq was leading them to ignore the lessons of defeats of past regimes stretching back at least to WWII. And there's plenty of historical evidence (including the conflict that drew us back into Iraq and Syria) that there was merit to both of those objections, despite them coming from very different, largely opposed, ideological factions.
        neetdeth 8y ago
        I'll admit I just plucked a year at random there and it was a poor example. You've aptly demonstrated your grasp of history but think it's a case of refusing to see the forest for the trees. The question in my mind is whether you've soured on the entire imperial project or not. Were the American objectives there ever realistic? Did the war ever make sense? The Syrian conflict itself is far too big a can of worms to open here. We probably disagree on the ground truth of what precipitated the conflict there and who's fighting whom and for what reasons. Regardless, it's very hard to convince the average American that whatever geopolitical maneuvering is happening there is worth caring about - despite very hard propaganda push campaigns in support of it. Back to the start of the thread, it was my observation that media outlets such as CNN, Fox etc are broadly pro-war... you're basically getting the range of perspectives between State and DoD and that's about it. The broad heuristic you can use to predict their editorial slant on any issue is use-of-force maximization. And that's definitely a discernible agenda.
philwelch 8y ago
> ...and these are appreciable agendas which are only deemed "centrist" because they are shared by the two major parties. Outlets like CNN closely reflect the consensus of the governing elite...Labeling positions which don't enjoy the endorsement of state-affiliated institutions as "extremist" is a common tactic to solidify control of the discourse. This comment reads to me as nothing more than naked worship of power. I guess this is technically true, except you can also apply the same argument for anything that's far enough outside of the mainstream. The "governing elite" also doesn't want to legalize heroin, establish Scientology as the state religion, outlaw ranching, adopt communism, reestablish a monarchy, abolish Medicare, or turn California into an independent country. (Unless they secretly do.) "My particular non-mainstream view is only non-mainstream because of TEH ESTABLISHMENT" is a classic conspiracy theory.
- neetdeth 8y ago
  The things you listed don't have a great deal of endogenous support among the populace, either. I'm most interested in cases where there is shear between popular opinion and The Establishment, and who wins in those cases. It seems to me that The Establishment consistently wins, and popular opinion slowly changes to conform with The Establishment, and not the other way around. It's a peculiar characteristic of Our Democracy. At least we've come a fair way from the original claim that pro-establishment media outlets have no "appreciable agenda," so I feel the exchange has been productive.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    > I'm most interested in cases where there is shear between popular opinion and The Establishment, and who wins in those cases. > It seems to me that The Establishment consistently wins, and popular opinion slowly changes to conform with The Establishment, and not the other way around. It's a peculiar characteristic of Our Democracy. Having same-sex marriage turned into a constitutional right, cannabis legalized in a couple dozen states, and Donald Trump in the White House are very prominent counterexamples to that contention.
    - 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Trump has been trying to extricate the US from conflict in Syria, with the media nearly unanimous in opposing this goal. The media, the left, and the remotely sane parts of the right are largely opposed to the specific mechanism; very few are opposed to the (purported) goal of extricating the US from the conflict in Syria.

neetdeth 8y ago
The specific mechanism of withdrawing US forces from the area? I seem to recall a lot of hand-wringing from neocons about specific withdrawal strategies from Iraq, but the bottom line was that Americans would remain in Iraq. You can't say oh, I'd like to extricate myself from this conflict, but also force a specific outcome. That's having your cake and eating it.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The specific mechanism of withdrawing US forces from the area? The timing, manner, and surrounding supporting activity (or lack thereof) of that withdrawal, yes. > You can't say oh, I'd like to extricate myself from this conflict, but also force a specific outcome. Perhaps, but you absolutely can choose the manner in which you attempt to extricate yourself from a conflict with an eye toward the likely impacts of that extrication.
  - neetdeth 8y ago
    We could quite literally reparent your comment under a discussion about Iraq circa 2007 and it would not look out of place coming from a neoconservative. And no wonder -- those are the same people who now form the "remotely sane parts of the right," according to the so-called left. > The timing, manner, and surrounding supporting activity Presumably the timing is too soon, the supporting activity not vigorous enough, etc, etc. Let's kick the can down the road another year, surely our underspecified war aims will be closer to fruition.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > We could quite literally reparent your comment under a discussion about Iraq circa 2007 and it would not look out of place coming from a neoconservative. No one had a plan to criticize in 2007. If you mean 2009-11, sure. Or, earlier in the same conflict, in 2004 from much of the Left and non-neocon Right against the Bush Admin in discussing how the neoconservatives desire to disentangle rapidly after the defeat of Iraq was leading them to ignore the lessons of defeats of past regimes stretching back at least to WWII. And there's plenty of historical evidence (including the conflict that drew us back into Iraq and Syria) that there was merit to both of those objections, despite them coming from very different, largely opposed, ideological factions.
      - neetdeth 8y ago
        I'll admit I just plucked a year at random there and it was a poor example. You've aptly demonstrated your grasp of history but think it's a case of refusing to see the forest for the trees. The question in my mind is whether you've soured on the entire imperial project or not. Were the American objectives there ever realistic? Did the war ever make sense? The Syrian conflict itself is far too big a can of worms to open here. We probably disagree on the ground truth of what precipitated the conflict there and who's fighting whom and for what reasons. Regardless, it's very hard to convince the average American that whatever geopolitical maneuvering is happening there is worth caring about - despite very hard propaganda push campaigns in support of it. Back to the start of the thread, it was my observation that media outlets such as CNN, Fox etc are broadly pro-war... you're basically getting the range of perspectives between State and DoD and that's about it. The broad heuristic you can use to predict their editorial slant on any issue is use-of-force maximization. And that's definitely a discernible agenda.

philwelch 8y ago

> ...and these are appreciable agendas which are only deemed "centrist" because they are shared by the two major parties. Outlets like CNN closely reflect the consensus of the governing elite...Labeling positions which don't enjoy the endorsement of state-affiliated institutions as "extremist" is a common tactic to solidify control of the discourse. This comment reads to me as nothing more than naked worship of power. I guess this is technically true, except you can also apply the same argument for anything that's far enough outside of the mainstream. The "governing elite" also doesn't want to legalize heroin, establish Scientology as the state religion, outlaw ranching, adopt communism, reestablish a monarchy, abolish Medicare, or turn California into an independent country. (Unless they secretly do.) "My particular non-mainstream view is only non-mainstream because of TEH ESTABLISHMENT" is a classic conspiracy theory.

neetdeth 8y ago
The things you listed don't have a great deal of endogenous support among the populace, either. I'm most interested in cases where there is shear between popular opinion and The Establishment, and who wins in those cases. It seems to me that The Establishment consistently wins, and popular opinion slowly changes to conform with The Establishment, and not the other way around. It's a peculiar characteristic of Our Democracy. At least we've come a fair way from the original claim that pro-establishment media outlets have no "appreciable agenda," so I feel the exchange has been productive.
- philwelch 8y ago
  > I'm most interested in cases where there is shear between popular opinion and The Establishment, and who wins in those cases. > It seems to me that The Establishment consistently wins, and popular opinion slowly changes to conform with The Establishment, and not the other way around. It's a peculiar characteristic of Our Democracy. Having same-sex marriage turned into a constitutional right, cannabis legalized in a couple dozen states, and Donald Trump in the White House are very prominent counterexamples to that contention.
  - 8y ago