If It Can Happen at Fox News …

What is happening at Fox News has happened to most of so-called journalism in America. It is what happened to the Republican party. It is what gave rise to President Donald J. Trump.

The establishment does not appreciate this because they are the heart of the problem. As Rupert Murdoch’s two sons, James and Lachlan, consolidate control of their father’s media empire, their establishment tendencies increasingly take root within the news network their father began, as a firebrand operation, just over twenty years ago.

Fox News deviated from the faux-journalism of the New York Times, the three major networks and their minions; and Fox thereby developed a following both loyal and determined. If that following determines that Fox is no longer loyal to them, they will increasingly look elsewhere for their news and information.

The targeting of non-establishment voices at Fox is well underway. Glenn Beck got the hook several years ago. In recent months, Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly (aside from Brit Hume, the two most significant figures in Fox News’ history) have been ushered from the network they helped establish and led into the stratosphere. Some say that Sean Hannity, a sometimes strident voice on the political right, is the new target of establishment house-cleaners, though he appears determined to fight back with every fiber. Good for him … and he had better.

The trend at Fox is not within a vacuum. Establishment consolidation is underway across the spectrum of U.S. media, and that includes so-called journalism. Consider this story from Politico, regarding the intense isolation of the media from the rest of the country, and a relevant excerpt, as relates to the 2016 presidential election: Nearly 90 percent of all internet publishing employees work in a county where Clinton won, and 75 percent of them work in a county that she won by more than 30 percentage points. When you add in the shrinking number of newspaper jobs, 72 percent of all internet publishing or newspaper employees work in a county that Clinton won. By this measure, of course, Clinton was the national media’s candidate.

The liberal establishment has long known their greatest political advantage is a vastly dominant influence over the mass dissemination of news and information. The most significant outlier to that dominance is Fox News. Thus, a new strategy — If you can’t beat Fox, get Fox to join you.

The Big Liberal Lie

It came to a head with Hurricane Katrina.

I remember watching Fox News and CNN; seeing people stranded on rooftops, surrounded by flood waters that had inundated New Orleans; people left homeless, awaiting rescue, seeking help just to make it through the day, uncertain what the next day would bring. At a point, I asked myself, “Aren’t there any white people here?” It seemed every one of those flood victims was black, and I wanted the disparity explained.

America’s liberal establishment, backed by their media hounds (a.k.a. the ‘mainstream’ media), found a convenient scapegoat in President George W. Bush, and they put the blame squarely on his shoulders. As it turns out, however, the answer is not so convenient for liberals to acknowledge. Because the flood victims I saw on TV were those living in the most vulnerable areas of the city, those most socially and economically marginalized. And in that regard, New Orleans is not unique.

Why have minorities, African-Americans in particular, been left behind in so many ways? How do certain people end up so often living in the poorest neighborhoods, socially and economically marginalized? An answer is found in the imagery of Katrina, but has less to do with natural disasters than with the man-made variety. For those images illustrated the abject failure of liberal policies, and of the decades-long drive to turn America into a welfare state.

American society is now into a third successive generation of liberal welfare policies that encourage people to have children out-of-wedlock. That has resulted in a breakdown of the traditional family structure in many communities, especially among African-Americans. And the problem has become endemic. Recent statistics show that approximately 72% of African-American children are born out-of-wedlock. And children raised in single-parent households, and too often in poverty, are far more likely to spend their adult lives in poverty, in conflict with police or other sanctioned authority, ingested into our criminal justice system, or otherwise socially and economically marginalized.

Our liberal establishment downplays this reality because it points to the big lie they’ve been telling for decades — that a bureaucratic welfare state remains the only hope for society’s disenfranchised. The truth, in fact, is that decades of liberal policies have created a massive government bureaucracy that relies on the victim status, and resulting political support, of the very people it purports to help. Instead of acknowledging this, liberals call for more gun control laws; they decry racist police officers; they call for spending ever more taxpayer money to ever further expand the federal bureaucracy — anything to avoid a serious examination of their own failed policies.

When a politician or media figure tells us that too many guns, too little federal spending, right-wing bigotry and too little government bureaucracy have marginalized America’s racial minorities, they are perpetuating a false narrative. The challenge for conservatives is to reach out to those who’ve come to accept that false narrative, those who’ve been lured into a cycle of dependency, those who’ve been conditioned to expect little from themselves and from society — and to convince them there is an alternative.

Think that’s impossible? Think again. We have a strong weapon on our side … the truth.

The Donald Meets The Megyn

 

Let’s face it, Donald Trump’s recent comment about Fox News anchor Megan Kelly, and where blood may or may not exit her body, was sexist, suggestive and inappropriate. His clear implication was that feminine biology was at work in prompting her aggressive interaction with him at the Republican presidential debate last Thursday.

However …

Let’s face it, Megan Kelly’s debate question to Donald Trump was snarky, snobbish and inappropriate. She was obviously tweaking him, putting him on the spot, hoping to get a rise out of the GOP front-runner. It worked. But her full-on assault, presented as a debate question, is what Republicans expect from NBC, ABC or CBS, not from Fox News.

One imagines that many in the Republican voter base are as disappointed with Ms. Kelly and Fox News as they are with Mr. Trump’s string of unfortunate comments. Someone should poll that and find out for sure.

What Is To Be Learned … Or Not … From 2014 Midterms

I watched the election returns last night, at a dining establishment in Santa Monica, California, and I sensed early on it was a good night to be Republican. At one point, a man sat down next to me at the restaurant’s bar, and before ordering anything, he glanced up to see Fox News’ coverage of Election Day 2014’s life-affirming results. The man seemed a bit taken aback, and said to the bartender, “Oh, is this election day?” To which the bartender, somewhat dumbfounded himself, replied, “I think it’s the state elections.”

Earlier today, President Obama held his first post-election press conference. When asked to characterize yesterday’s results, the President conceded merely that, “The Republicans had a good night.” Indeed, Republicans had more than that. It was a resounding Republican triumph, and as deep and convincing a defeat for Democrats as the “shellacking” (the president’s word choice) they suffered in 2010. Mr. Obama attributed those 2010 losses to a poor job of “messaging” by himself and his party. However, in this sixth year of the Obama presidency, voters left little guesswork in their wake, as they thoroughly repudiated Mr. Obama and his party’s now well-established, statist vision of America.

In the process, Republicans took control of the U.S. Senate, gaining 7 seats for a majority of 52 seats, and likely more once the dust settles in Alaska, Louisiana and Virginia. Republicans also added at least another 12 seats to their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, while they further expanded their share of Governorships among states in all regions of the country. This doesn’t even scratch the surface of down-ballot victories in state legislatures and local races.

At first blush, Mr. Obama’s concession that Republicans merely had “a good night” might seem politically tone-deaf. Considering, however, that the president’s target audience consists of voters who are themselves politically tone-deaf and relatively uninformed, like my two friends at the bar last night, Mr. Obama’s comment begins to make a degree of sense.

One imagines the president will allow himself to learn little from his party’s defeat yesterday, that he will continue his appeals to the clueless and uninformed, and that he will remain dismissive and obstinate toward those who don’t give him his way. And so, one anticipates the remainder of Mr. Obama’s presidency will be a rancorous, divisive and perhaps dispiriting affair. As President George W. Bush once famously said … “Bring it on.”

Mr. Romney … Please

No less venerable a source than Bill O’Reilly, of Fox News, has reported that Mitt Romney is considering yet another run for the presidency … seriously.

Let’s be clear, I am solidly with the 45% of Americans who, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll, think America would be better off if Governor Romney were in the White House right now, instead of President Obama (who garnered a mere 38%). Having said that, here’s some unsolicited advice for Mr. Romney.

Overly cautious in your execution of inherently flawed strategies in 2012, you lost to an extremely vulnerable, highly beatable incumbent. And that was your second try at the presidency. Don’t expect a third effort to be a charmed walk in the park. The forces that aligned against you in 2012, so as to award Mr. Obama his second term, will line up once again if Hillary Clinton needs them.

Of course, if Hillary does not run in 2012, and she may well decide not to, then the calculation changes somewhat in your favor. And there is the factor of your having already weathered the withering negative storm that Obama and his left-wing media allies launched against you last time around — now on the other side of that storm, rehabilitated by the successful documentary, Mitt, which portrayed you in a favorable light, you may now actually be stronger than ever.

Please, continue to comment publicly on matters of national policy. That is welcomed. But as to running for high office once again, you cannot afford to be so half-hearted as you were in 2012, or you’ll suffer a similar outcome, and perhaps ruin the Republican party in the process. Follow this advice at your own peril … probably best to move on and leave the field open to other viable contenders.