Progressives, Quo Vadis?

I have asked myself repeatedly why progressives have failed to make Rupert Murdoch a poster child for what is wrong with this country. He has spawned the demagogues of hate, e.g. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and now Glenn Beck. He has turned political debate into the emotion-driven rancor usually found at professional wrestling matches or a Jerry Springer show. He has eviscerated American television news by turning it into sex, violence and entertainment. He has done these things while commanding the largest media empire on earth. And yet progressives have failed to pillory Murdoch with a constant well-developed persona. He remains in the background manipulating American politics as he wills. During the great depression there was no hesitation about repeatedly portraying the fat cat J. P Morgan as an enemy of the people. Why have progressives, not to mention Democrats, been so timid in their attacks on this enemy of democracy? MoveOn did bring out a faux edition of the Wall Street Journal in an effort to stymie permission for his purchase of that paper, but this was a one time stunt, not part of a consistent effort to create and provide the public with an appropriate image of the man. Upton Sinclair had no trouble characterizing the railroad barons' control of California politics as an octopus. Presumably the same image would be appropriate for Murdoch and his multiple media tentacles, to effectively articulate and continuously draw attention to his deleterious impact on our democratic processes. This is a man who owns every means of communication and information transfer known to man and seeks to establish his communications control world wide. This is far too much power for a single human being to possess and constitutes a threat to democracy world wide. He has demonstrated his willingness to cooperate with dictatorships in China. He indulges in massive tax avoidance. And he overwhelms the political discourse of this country with his raucous appeal to raw human emotion bent on vilifying those who oppose his agenda of wealth.

Murdoch has been the subject of satire in a John Cleese, of Monty Python fame, movie entitled The Octopus. The British have a much firmer grasp on this man's persona and ambition. We need to stigmatize him with the truth repeatedly, to draw the connection between Fox News and the effort to defeat health care for all. He himself undoubtedly has a personal physician in attendance on demand. Excessive wealth needs to be pilloried as the enemy of democracy and what better icon than Murdoch?

This all needs to be done before democracy sinks in the face of the multipronged onslaught of wealth. Why have progressives not taken up the challenge of a sustained focus on the threat of excessive wealth?

This issue was brought more clearly in focus for me as I recently read the Coal King by Upton Sinclair. This is a novel based on a 1914 Colorado coal mine strike. In it Sinclair portrays the abject lives of poor immigrant miners, most of whom could not speak English. As in his novel The Jungle, Sinclair describes their harsh and dangerous working conditions, low pay and, in the case of these miners, the total control the corporate mine owners exercised over these trapped human beings. He tellingly portrays the struggle of union progressives to bridge the gap between themselves and the illiterate miners, often drawing attention to the erroneous assumptions these well-intentioned people made. The corporate mine owners lived their lives of elegance within 35 miles of their mines.

This latter fact struck a resonating chord with me because I was also reading Thom Hartman's new book Threshold at the same time. In it Hartman draws a distinction between regional corporate CEOs who remain in the main decent human beings for whom it is still important to keep in mind at least some of the human consequences of their decisions and multinational corporate CEOs who lack such concerns to the extent that they are properly regarded as psychopaths. I was recently talking to a marketing consultant for corporations who used the same term to describe major corporate CEOs. The point here is that between 1914 and toddy the regional CEO has become somewhat humanized. It is the large national and multinational corporate CEO that has assumed the mantle of callous indifference as a requirement of business "success." Could this be called progress? Hartman asked himself an interesting question, namely, why are major multinational corporate CEOs paid up to a billion dollars a year? The corporate boards of directors say they have to pay those sums to get the best talent and ability. Hartman asked why the number of these people is so small. Why is there no one available in a large pool of well trained, experienced, MBAs willing to do the job for, say, 800 million dollars? Why, in short, does this kind of money not create a larger employment market? Hartman's answer is that the best profit-generating CEO's of major multination corporations unique qualification is not education or business acumen. The sole major difference between the highest paid CEOs and others is their willingness and ability to treat employees as objects. These people can easily merge corporations, sell off unneeded assets and thereby lay off thousands of people as easily as they can sell off surplus buildings and equipment.

Herein lies, I believe, one of the major reasons progressives have been relatively ineffective. In addition to the obvious fact that movements can be better organized in factories and mines in which thousands of workers are brought together in one place, the corporate decision makers have been so removed from the society of ordinary people that progressives do not know how to deal with them. In the early part of the 20th century one could close down an auto plant, severely impacting corporate profit. How do progressives close down Fox News using people from a wide variety of occupations, sometimes with very different agendas, distributed around the country and increasingly around the world? Do we not need to reconceive the means of progressive change from the job and all it entails to society itself? Instead of the strike do we not need to find the solution in changing our society's preoccupation with money and profit to a people-first use of economic productivity? If we do not undertake such a fundamental revaluation, it will not be long before the coalition of the wealthy will totally dominate humanity and destroy what remnants of democracy we still have.

Bob Newhard