Interesting article in my email this morning....

The Media Disappeared Howard Dean

by Rick Salutin


Has anybody else noticed the disappearance of Howard Dean from U.S. presidential politics? Maybe someone caught it on a surveillance camera in a mall. The figures who hustled him away were wearing media badges.

Why did they have to get him out of there? Because he was being disruptive. Not wrong exactly, but too loud, spoke out of turn, the sorts of things one doesn't say in mainstream politics. The equivalent of belching or farting in public. The media are the ushers and security guards of politics. They maintain decorum.

For example: Howard Dean said the Bush government "capitalized on domestic fears of terrorism for political gain." Wow. That suggests it manipulated 9/11 for the sake of its own agenda. Millions of Americans may believe this (consider the huge sales of Michael Moore's books) and Bush officials such as Paul Wolfowitz did yearn publicly for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." But the charge is still taboo in mainstream discourse. It makes almost all that was said and done since 9/11, including po-faced media coverage of the noble ideals behind the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, sleazily suspect.

Mr. Dean said the Bush "tax cuts are designed to destroy . . . our public services through starvation and privatization," making tax cuts sound less like a debatable policy than a devious plot -- which Reaganites have said they were. He noted "a fundamental difference between the defense of our nation and the [Bush] doctrine of pre-emptive war." That goes to the scary heart of U.S. foreign policy. But most U.S. leaders and pundits act as if ordinary people could not understand the distinction. He was similarly blunt on globalization's evil outcomes and the Bush use of "quota" as racist code. He kept moving past the normal rhetoric -- Our leaders are grievously mistaken -- to imply: Our leaders are deliberate liars, betraying the general good for their own aims.

It suggested deep corruption at the heart of mainstream politics. Of course, such criticisms are widespread -- but not among leading candidates for president. They're supposed to sound oppositional, not deranged -- in mainstream terms. They're expected to remain, as it were, in the frame; not leap outside it and spit back in. Normally you don't get to that point with those views. Maybe Mr. Dean stumbled out there by chance, after he became governor, or decided to run for president, without ever intending to jump the frame. Such slip-ups occur -- even when you grew up on Park Avenue and went to Yale. It then becomes the media's task to spot the deviants and escort them to the political margins, where they now belong. This happened to former U.S. Attorney-General Ramsey Clark, when his take on the world got far too loopy for an insider.

How did the media do it? By telling scary stories, mostly about Howard's ugly temper, as decision time drew near. "ALL THE RAGE" read Newsweek's cover. It ran selected quotes from his own website: "Dammit, tell him to get his mouth under control!" etc. Time magazine had "Anger Management 101." The New York Times headlined: "As the Race Turns Hot, What About Dean's Collar?" on "the impression that he is a man with lots of anger, an attribute that repels many voters."

But as anger repels some, it attracts others. It can even be a relief, especially when conflict is being suppressed or denied. So why does it get suddenly invoked as an overriding negative? I mean, why not suddenly focus on George Bush's ease in approving 152 executions in his six years as Texas governor, often with a smirk or a joke? It rings a little of the race in 2000, when Senator John McCain's mental balance became an issue just as it seemed he might beat out then-governor Bush. "Electability" also vaulted suddenly into the coverage in the weeks before Iowa caucused, along with the question: Is Howard Dean "acceptable" to the U.S. mainstream? I do sometimes wish the media elites would allow the masses to define for themselves what they will accept.

Of course the population may decide to go with Howard Dean anyway. The media cannot impose their views; all they can do is try (unconsciously, of course, as Lord Hutton would say). So I'm not claiming a media conspiracy; just that they tend to be well-suited and professionally conditioned to spot incoming threats on the radar and react in a uniform, or copycat way.

The media's renowned critical powers mainly operate on those who violate rules inside the frame, or those like Howard Dean who breach it by saying the unspeakable. As for his famous scream in Iowa, it came long after he had been led out of the building by the media. For my money, he got on a roll, feeling the crowd, and reached his peak phrase ("The White House, in Washington, D.C.") regrettably early, with little to do but finish with a yelp. It could happen to any of us.