Home Editor's Picks Why Clinton-Media-Industrial Complex’s ‘Purity Test’ Argument is Cover for Corruption

Why Clinton-Media-Industrial Complex’s ‘Purity Test’ Argument is Cover for Corruption

4162
5
SHARE

As the progressive movement’s momentum and popularity continues to explode, progressive reporters, commentators, and pundits have been under siege like never before.

Whether it be, on one end, from other independent commentators who, despite false facts, zero research, context, and in some cases outward lies, have developed a sport of attacking journalists they deem as “sell-outs”–and coincidentally enough, cashed in with clicks for continuing to sling mud without substance– OR from more establishment commentators and reporters who attack folks like me for having what they deem as an unreasonable “purity test,” half my day is spent reading NONSENSE.

Obviously, journalists have to learn to take it all in stride. But it’s the latter group of corporate establishment folks that’ve been hell-bent on attacking myself and independent journalists and commentators like Glenn Greenwald, David Sirota, Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kulinski, Lee Camp, Tim Black, and more.

The aforementioned group, along with others, have been blamed for everything that’s gone wrong in America in the eyes of the corporate Democratic establishment: Donald Trump’s victory, Republicans controlling every level of government and the Supreme Court, Hillary Clinton’s epic failure, and of course, have been dubbed agents of the Kremlin for having the temerity to question the group think hysteria of the corporate media when it comes to Russia.

According to neoliberal politicians, journalists, pundits, and tweeters, it’s our “purity test” that put Trump in office.

In reality, it was their collective failure to STUDY (in preparation for the election) and understand the arithmetic (like polls showing Hillary Clinton was the weakest Democratic candidate in history, particularly in the Midwest, as opposed to Bernie Sanders defeating Trump in head-to-head polls) that made them flunk the actual test.

If the DNC, or the Democratic Party, or establishment journalists would have taken their head out of their big donors’ laps, and in the journalists’ case—their own asses—long enough to go out and do IN-DEPTH reporting in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida, they would’ve clearly understood the level of raw anger, hopelessness, and desperation among American citizens against typical, corporate, establishment politicians like Hillary Clinton.

They would have been able to see why Bernie Sanders was drawing tens of thousands of people at rallies and, dare I say, looked in the mirror to see if they need to re-evaluate how they operate in the political arena (and who they take money from).

Instead, you had such corporate-backed geniuses like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer offering these pearls of wisdom: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

But it’s my “purity test” that elected Trump, right?

The truth is, Trump didn’t win because of his performance on the campaign trail in 2015-2016. Trump won because the 30-year Corporate Con Job that had been perpetrated against working people had finally boiled over. Citizens in the Rust Belt and beyond were sick of empty platitudes like “Stronger Together,” while, through the gift of the Internet, able to do their own research to learn the rhetoric of politicians like Hillary Clinton didn’t match how she voted, who she voted on behalf, and who she funneled in money from.

Sure, Trump was a complete phony on the trail, but he wasn’t a politician, and for the thousands of voters I talked to on the campaign trail, that was enough.

But, instead of doing a real autopsy to reflect on why Clinton lost, why the Democratic Party is at a record-level of unpopularity, and why voters choose to vote for Republican politicians (i.e. vote against their own interests), the Clinton-media-industrial-complex deflects with fingers pointed at the Russian boogeyman while assigning blame to digital journalists and commentators with a hell of a lot less power than, say, Vladimir Putin.

As I’ve said over and over, I’m perfectly fine with there being an investigation to see if any laws were broken in relation to whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to hack the DNC or John Podesta’s emails to then feed emails to WikiLeaks. I haven’t seen any INCONTROVERTIBLE evidence that this happened, so, unlike the corporate media, I don’t just uncritically regurgitate it. You know, occasionally, when you beat the drum against a nuclear power with a pretty nutty leader, you can start a war!

I’m also OK with there being investigation into whether President Trump has made financial deals with the Russian government or businesses—or any other governments and businesses—that could be impacting his decisions as president. To me, that’s the much more likely scenario than some sinister collusion plot. And, even though I do find it shady that Donald Trump Jr. met with Russian government officials for dirt on Clinton, I’m not sure if a crime was committed (nor does that prove criminal collusion).

But what I’m not OK with is the ridiculous, reverse-psychology nonsense being lodged by the same neoliberal crown who banked on Hillary Clinton—and hollered Bernie Sanders had no chance despite polls saying the opposite—at folks like me about purity tests.

As I tweeted the other day, I DO have a “purity test.” And it’s simple.

You see these folks are confusing ethics with purity. The former is when voters have the GALL to expect their elected officials to represent them and not big banks, pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, defense contractors, and the rest of the usual suspects. The latter is having an extremely narrow, black-and-white view of the world and the politicians you support—and condemning them if they don’t follow and execute every single ideal you do.

I, nor any of the independent journalists mentioned in this piece have advocated that. In reality, there’s plenty of things I disagree with Senator Bernie Sanders on. And Elizabeth Warren. And in many cases, even my colleagues and hosts at The Young Turks.

[JORDAN’S OUT WITH A NEW BOOK, “CORPORATE CON JOB: HOW MAINSTREAM MEDIA AIDS THE OLIGARCHY,” DELIVERING ALL THE BEHIND-THE-SCENES REALITIES FROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, THE DNC, STANDING ROCK, FLINT, AND BEYOND. DOWNLOAD/DONATE NOW!]

BUT, I know–because I RESEARCH–that despite disagreements on certain policies or stories, those figures are not in one breath attacking the big banks, and in another taking their money. I know that those folks are not, in one breath, sounding the alarm about the dangers of climate change, and in the other, taking cash from oil and gas companies or folks who invest in them. I know these folks are pursing policies or commentary based on what they genuinely believe to be the facts without sinister or ulterior motives.

In politics or life, there are always compromises we must make. Those compromises are sometimes on a small scale and sometimes on a bigger scale. But, the problem with American politics, is for the last 30-40 years—particularly as rules on political donations have loosened—politicians have compromised the best interests of those they are elected to represent in order to stay in power and clime the political ladder—to eventually cash out as high-priced lobbyists.

So, yes, I do have a “purity test.” That politicians–Democrats, Republicans, or aliens–refuse money from the special interests that have hijacked Democracy and served as the gasoline on the fire that is raging income inequality in this country.

If that makes me radical, then my thoughts are…

5 COMMENTS

  1. I like you Jordan. I appreciate you. Thank you for your truth, and all your hard work. Try to be safe man.

  2. Hope you don’t run off to flint for weeks and weeks when there’s other crucial stuff to report. Also don’t trash Indy media no matter how much you think they suck…it makes you seem petty. Lose tyt. Don’t let your head get any bigger.

  3. You were describing me, a 62 year old from Blue State, Washington. I have held my nose and voted for the lesser of 2 evils nearly every election since I was 18…. until the first year of Obama… But then we all got screwed for believing again. The Dems will say it is due to Repubs. But it was the Dems who never resisted or got out in front of issues for the people… But, just look.. Obama is ripe for Lobbying now…. and both Clinton’s. Thank you for being young and fighting and putting voice to how millions of Americans feel.

Comments are closed.