Sarah’s Stalwarts

Wonderful satire:

The Canadian writer Naomi Klein is one of those thankfully rare individuals that is not at all bothered by hypocrisy: she denounces capitalism on the one hand, yet makes a good living out of selling books through a major publisher. Her last book, “The Shock Doctrine”, which suggests that business is making a profit out of disaster, is all so very typical in its blather about the greed and evil of corporations.

Yet, she is the proverbial blind squirrel who sometimes does happen upon an acorn of truth in spite of her best intentions. Her previous book to “The Shock Doctrine”, “No Logo”, is also full of nonsense, however one item is worth mentioning: she stated that Nike is not a shoes and sportswear company.

This may come as a surprise, considering the longevity of the “Just Do It” commercials and the presence of the Nike swoosh on so many shoes and clothes. However, Klein rightly points out that Nike does not actually make the products: they are virtually all outsourced to third parties in the Far East. While there are some research and development functions that remains in the United States, our traditional expectations of a manufacturer (that they own rubber plantations in Malaysia, nylon factories in America, and so on), are now invalid. As Klein points out, Nike makes nothing in particular except for its brand, and this phenomenon is spreading.

According to Klein, brand is all. If there wasn’t the Nike brand, there is not a great deal to separate Nike shoes and t-shirts from generic items, and as a trip to Wal Mart shows, the price differential between branded and unbranded items can be enormous. We are programmed to assume that the values of a brand, (in Nike’s case, the epitome of modern athleticism) translate into the quality of the goods. This assumption is faulty, particularly since generic items and Nike items are made side by side. It is, however, symptomatic of an entrenched public belief in spin over substance.

This leads us neatly to Barack Obama: I have no hesitation in saying that Obama is a brand. His website and the well-designed “O” logo are symptomatic of a candidate who has been aggressively marketing in a modern way: he is trying to associate his very name with certain values, i.e., “change”, “renewal”, “hope”. The branding work has been well executed; he has managed to make it so that his name and his logo are now interchangeable. For a time, the t-shirts, bumper stickers and pins adorned with the logo were sought after items. However it is worth asking, if the Nike swoosh is just covering up for overpriced shoes, what is the “O” brand hiding?

Perhaps the most telling event in this campaign was Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama. While news outlets hailed this as a passing of the torch from JFK’s valiant stalwarts to the next generation, this is inaccurate: rather, Obama is the embodiment of the hopes of the Northeastern liberal establishment, in its desire to reassert control over the American polity.

Believe it or not, the government of the United States used to do a lot more than it does now. There was a point that America had wage and price controls; even President Nixon was forced to admit, “We’re all Keynesians now”. The economy was much more heavily regulated overall; few people recollect the revolutionary changes instituted by President Reagan. The media was much more narrow: most Americans only had the alphabet networks and the major newspapers to keep them informed about the day’s events. From the liberals’ perspective, the height of their powers was achieved in 1976, when Jimmy Carter was elected President. They held all the levers of the government, the economy and the media. Ted Kennedy, Tip O’Neill, and yes, Joe Biden, were all in clover. Only the National Review and Ronald Reagan appeared to be swimming valiantly against the tide.

Because Reagan was one of the greatest men of the twentieth century and because the elite made a hash of it, this has all been overturned: liberalism was pushed back. The internet and Fox News have beaten the traditional media within an inch of its life. The electorate has largely moved to the right; no presidential candidate could now admit to being an out and out liberal and survive. Hence, the only method by which the old order could reassert itself was to “rebrand”, thanks to the assistance of the ambitious Mr. Obama. Far from being the avatar of change, he is the icon of reaction, wishing to march the country backwards to the 1970’s. Perhaps the most telling item was when he stated that he wanted to make government “cool” again; this hinted at the ambition to expand the role of the state, and at the same time, the rebranding he wished to apply.

The Obama campaign is thus supremely cynical, and represents the masking of revanchist tendencies with modern marketing techniques. However, there is a problem: people are voting for someone to lead them, to keep the nation safe, to make wise and firm decisions. Reducing this calculation to the same parameters that one would apply to buying shoes is underestimating the intelligence and character of the American electorate, indeed, it shows the contempt that Obama and his advisors have for the citizens he wishes to persuade. Obama’s slippage in the polls is partially due to his errors, but it is just as likely due to the deep-set rot of faulty branding: the contrast of Sarah Palin, unadorned, unbranded and genuine, has only made this situation even more stark. More and more will begin to see that there is no change in Obama to believe in, but rather reversion. There is nothing new beneath the rhetoric and pyrotechnics, just old fashioned liberalism. Only emptiness lies beneath the brand, except for the last, wispy gasps of a now-dying elite.

I suggest that if Obama loses, the elite will learn very little from it; they may try to resurrect the Clinton brand for a run in 2012. However, if the economy improves, Iraq stabilises and America remains secure, the Democrats’ moment can said to have passed. Given the cynicism, opportunism, and sneering contempt that lies at the heart of their vision for America, the loss of their big chance is cause for relief.

Randi Rhodes, completely unhinged:

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=173913

Whatever it lacks in editing, it more than makes up for in passion:

As provided by Freedom’s Defence Fund:

Nails it:

Really excellent work from the PUMAs, showing the inherent bias in the Sarah Palin interview:

Evidence Gibson Was Prejudiced Against Palin: Comparison of Palin and Obama Interviews

An unbelievable smear, as documented on Politico:

South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate ” whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

Palin is an opponent of abortion rights and gave birth to her fifth child, Trig, earlier this year after finding out during her pregnancy that the baby had Down syndrome.

Fowler told my colleague Alex Burns in an interview that the selection of an opponent of abortion rights would not boost McCain among many women.

See more at Politico.

As seen on Breitbart.tv:

Click here.

Hat tip to the PUMAs.

Excellent -