At the beginning of the 2012 GOP Presidential Primary, I made a solemn commitment as both a columnist and Editor in Chief of this publication to give Congressman Ron Paul completely fair and unbiased coverage â€“ the sort of coverage that his campaign was so overtly denied in 2008. I didn't agree with much of his platform (though some of it was admittedly very attractive), but that was the point. It's not my job as a member of the media to decide who is a contender. That privilege belongs to the people.
I feel confident that we have fulfilled that pledge, and it is only now, in the face of mathematical certainty, that I feel comfortable exploring what a shame it is that he was never given a chance, not only by the media, but by Republican voters â€“ especially the so-called Tea Party whose supposed ideas couldn't have aligned more perfectly with a candidate, yet from whom he received only lukewarm support.
Even though it became clear early that the mainstream media (MSM) couldn't just blatantly pretend he wasn't running, like they did with Gary Johnson
and Buddy Roemer
, it also became clear that they would only address him in terms that included the disclaimer that while he's clearly running, he had absolutely no chance of winning. Talking heads would engage in debates over whether it was a bigger problem that Republicans who supported him were â€œthrowing their votes awayâ€ or that the votes he was â€œstealing from other candidatesâ€ would alter the outcome. When Dr. Paul started doing well in polls and early primaries, the narrative switched to, when he loses, will his success embolden an independent run that would surely lead to victory for President Obama?
and How do we stop that? Having any media platform involves a great deal of social responsibility. Please try to stop laughing for a momentâ€¦no? In all seriousness, the media determines the national narrative to such an extent, that major stories can literally never come to exist in the collective culture, while comparably minor ones can become embedded in the mind of hundreds of millions of people.
When some barely intelligible moron threatens to burn a Koran before his congregation of a few dozen, it is hardly worthy of a single camera, yet it became a two month-long international ordeal with swarms of reporters from every major outlet.
When 10,000 protesters from movie stars to NASA scientists surrounded the White House to protest the Keystone XL pipeline, there was a near media blackout. When we signed three (what should have been highly-controversial) trade agreements last year, there was almost no mention of it in the mainstream press, though the nearby trial of a mom accused of infanticide somehow became the focus of the entire world's obsession for months (while other similar cases went nearly unnoticed).
I'm proud to say that we covered two of those stories and passed on the other two, and even more proud that anyone familiar with our publication will not have to guess as to which ones. But small independents are the exception, not the rule. In the MSM, there clearly exists a broad narrative that certain stories fit and others don't. Ron Paul didn't fit the narrative that allows the corporate media to turn Coke vs. Pepsi contests into epic battles between radically different ideologies.
Sarah Palin couldn't go rogue
assaulting the "failed socialist policies" of the Obama administration and invoke "real patriots who understand the constitution," while hawking her brand on the Today Show with people like Ron Paul around. If it looks silly without him in the picture, it looks downright absurd with him present. Unlike Palin, Paul actually does understand the constitution quite well, and can certainly make a better case than most opportunist politicians like her, that he's a patriot
. On the other side of the spectrum, guys like Dennis Kucinich complicate the Obama is a socialist narrative
, by pointing out that it's pretty hard to even make a case that he's a liberal when you compare his platform with the Congressman from Ohio, who was conveniently redistricted out of a job this year.
At the end of the day, Obama, McCain, Romney, Clinton, et al are much more alike than they are different. They are corporatists who do more for the special interests that curry favor with them than for the average American. They have all bought into the globalist model of government and offer little more than token efforts to fix the things that are truly important to the people who elect them, while spending the bulk of their energies either assisting or pacifying the corporate interests that empower them â€“ the people who ultimately run the country, in any true sense. They are all Business Roundtable approved, Trilateral Commission endorsed, CFR anointed, Bilderberg stamped elitists whose true beliefs are largely indiscernible and perhaps equally irrelevant.
For the vast majority of Americans, this is about little more than crumbs from the table. No matter who is elected, the federal debt will continue to balloon and any difference in deficit reduction will be so small as to be meaningless, except for those who lose vital public services at that alter. If you're in a very high tax bracket and personally benefit, either through income or investments, from corporations that are selected by the power brokers to succeed, you'll do better with one team. If you work on Wall Street, are a union member, educator or recipient of social safety-net benefits, you'll catch more crumbs from the other. If you deal in fossil fuels or defense contracting, you'll be golden in either case. The difference with Ron Paul was that he wasn't thinking in terms of crumb distribution. He planned to go after the way we deal with the actual food on the table, and Democrat or Republican, if you were in a position of privilege â€“ which anyone high up enough to influence the narrative of the MSM certainly is â€“ that threatened to upset the apple cart, which just wouldn't do. The people who run this country are largely indifferent to which party controls it, because as the facts show, they prosper equally regardless. Further down the line, some fairly influential ones actually do notice a difference in their bottom line, and that's where the sharper lines are drawn â€“ unions, teachers, insurance and healthcare companies, trial lawyers, etc. â€“ that feed the beast and incite the horse races.
For average Americans, there have only been a handful of candidates that spoke to things that could actually effect the sort of changes that would really impact the system at a root level, and whether you agree with Ron Paul's policies or not, he was certainly chief among them. So chalk another one up for the oligarchs, but there was something on the menu other than Coke or Pepsi in this election. Sure, the mainstream media did its part, but anyone paying attention even a little bit this time around had to know about Ron Paul. If you allowed them to somehow convince you that the choice didn't really exist in any practical sense, then shame on you. Real change will only come to our Republic once average people start insisting on thinking for themselves.