Sitting through a Rachel Maddow commentary is difficult enough in the best of circumstances. Listening to her tortured logic (employing the word loosely) as she tried to expose the “perfidy” of lobbyist Rick Berman and Big Government editor-in-chief Michael Flynn was enough to make one’s ears bleed. Either unable or unwilling to discuss the merit of Berman’s and Flynn’s positions with regard to any particulars, Maddow relied upon a classic liberal theme song to make her point: whatever government or so-called public interests groups want to do is both altruistic and good and whatever conservatives and corporations want to do is selfish and evil.
No doubt this background music, which permeated her latest sneering rant, resonated like a symphony when heard by MSNBC’s enraptured audience of a couple dozen or so of the leftist faithful. For the rest of America, growing ever more disenchanted with the munificence of big government, it was just more liberal static.
But, once again, we must ponder the ultimately-unanswerable question: What’s the most annoying thing about Rachel Maddow? Is it the condescendingly arrogant way in which she delivers her message, or is it the appalling ignorance that forms the foundation of her message? In this particular case, I lean toward the latter.
After all, Maddow closed this “expose” by telling viewers that it wasn’t needed in the first place. “They think you’re dumb,” she said, “they” being conservative opponents who – in Maddow’s world – just have to be corporate shills. “You’re not dumb. They can’t fool you.”
That begs the question: If we can’t be fooled Rachel, why did you just waste six minutes of our lives explaining how we were being fooled? But then that’s our Rachel, if she doesn’t close with a deafening crescendo of condensation, she really can’t look face herself in the mirror the next morning.
Which brings us to ignorance. The foundation of Maddow’s hypothesis here relies upon a bedrock liberal assumption: that every public interest group – public or private – is actually interested the public’s interest. In Rachel’s world, public interest groups are chastely devoted to protecting the populace, while corporations, and by extension the conservatives who defend free enterprise, seek only to exploit the masses. An analysis, such as it is, doesn’t get more simplistic than that.
In fact, public interest groups involve as much, if not more, self-interest as any corporation. The difference is that the profit-motive is plain to see when it comes to businesses, but is – at least among the left – all but invisible when so-called public interest groups are in play. In fact, public interest groups sell a product every bit as in demand as anything that’s produced in a factory: fear.
Without a “crisis” to solve – absent a corporate enemy to fight – these self-appointed defenders of public health and welfare would wither and die from a lack of funding. Having worked in the environmental industry for over twenty-five years, I’ve seen countless examples of this behavior. An example will prove instructive:
Ten years ago, the state of Illinois was contemplating a couple of new rules that would affect the power industry in the Prairie State. The first rule effectively helped incentivize natural gas-fired power at the expense of coal-fired power. I testified before the Illinois EPA, on behalf of the natural gas utility I represented at the time, in favor of the measure, as did a lobbyist for the American Lung Association (ALA), an especially powerful public interest group when it comes to air quality issues. A couple of months later, I testified in opposition to another rule that would have put barriers – and perhaps outright banned – natural gas-fired power development in Illinois, but without mentioning coal in any way. The ALA lobbyist, to my great surprise (I was a lot more naïve back then) proceeded to testify in favor of the natural gas ban. That made no sense. How could the ALA be in favor of natural gas one day and then, a couple months later, be against it?
I called the ALA guy out on the issue, one-on-one, once the hearings were over. He shrugged – a little embarrassed I think – and then explained what should have been obvious. “I know what you’re saying Rich,” he said. “But, we’ve got our membership to think about.” Translation: the ALA can’t worry about the big picture. In order to keep donations rolling in, they have to be seen to be in opposition of the worst corporate villainy available at the time, no matter if that opposition runs contrary to their supposed overall goals. It’s all about funding, kids.
Maddow and her liberal brothers and sisters function under the illusion that the organizations which claim to have divorced themselves from prurient self-interest actually do so. The reality – and the conservative outlook is all about reality – is that so-called public-interest groups are as concerned about their own bottom line as anyone. A responsible, thoughtful journalist would take a look at these groups and wonder: who’s watching the watchdogs? Leftist cheerleaders like Rachel Maddow never worry about those questions. They’re more than willing to free the angry, hungry “watchdogs” from the leash of oversight, until such fear-mongers devour every last bit of frightened financial support that a gullible public is willing to provide.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.