Announce Events Send Out Your News Sell Your Books Advertise With Us   NGOs, U.N. MISSIONS: "Get Your Message Out"

The Invisible Guest

by John Tessitore (See his Bio.)

Senior Editor and Contributing Columnist, MaximsNews.com  JohnTessitore@MaximsNews.com 

                UNITED NATIONS  - 12 August 2004 / www.MaximsNews.com / By any standard, the four-day Democratic National Convention in Boston was a stellar example of party unity and inclusiveness.  

Gays were openly welcomed, women were painstakingly highlighted, Blacks and Hispanics were warmly embraced—even the old liberal lion, Teddy Kennedy, was given his moment in the sun.  

It short, it was a classic Democratic love fest, with all the variety and diversity that is the bed-rock of “the people’s” party.

Or was it?  

On closer look, something seems to have been missing.  

For all its inclusiveness, one old familiar member of the Democratic Party was conspicuously absent—or, if not exactly absent, at least attending incognito.  

I’m speaking, of course, of the United Nations.

At a convention presided over by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, himself a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, it’s curious that speaker after speaker avoided any and all mention of the world organization that has been a critical element in the party’s foreign policy platform for nearly six decades.  

Oh, there were code words, of course.  

Many speakers talked about the need “to work with our allies”; some talked about “the community of nations”; others warned about the folly of “going it alone” in the world. 

But none, as I recall, ever actually mentioned the U.N. by name.  

One can almost imagine the memo that went out to all convention speakers:  “Note:  Do not, repeat, do NOT use the words ‘United Nations’!” 

Certainly, John Edwards and John Kerry did not.  

In fact, Kerry went so far as to assure the public that under his leadership America would never subject its foreign policy to a “veto,” a clear allusion to the U.N. Security Council.  

And, just as clear, it was an attempt to distance himself from the charge of the Bush administration that to look to the United Nations for the advancement of U.S. foreign policy was, by definition, to weaken our national defense.

Clearly, the Democrats are smarting under that charge, and are eager to convince a pugnacious public that they too can be tough guys, if they have to be.  

And being tough means, again by definition, being willing to go it alone.  

So take that, you multilateral organization!

But wait a moment.  

Just when was it that the American public got this idea that to participate in U.N. forums, including the Security Council, went against the interests of our national security?  

When did “United Nations” became part of that negative political vocabulary along with such classics as “tree huggers” and “tax and spend Democrats”?  

After all, wasn’t it just a dozen or so years ago that the first George Bush went to war in Iraq under a U.N. flag with a coalition—a real coalition—of over 20 nations?  

And didn’t that coalition actually fund the cost of that war, such that it cost the American tax-payers nothing whatsoever!  

In fact, according to the government’s own numbers, the U.S. made a “profit” of something in the area of $10 billion.  

Compare that to the $250 billion (and climbing) that Americans are paying for involvement in Iraq this time around.

The interesting question, then, is how we got from there to here in such a short time.   

And for the answer to that question, I would suggest we need only take a good look at what has happened during that period to the American media.

I am by no means the first to suggest that the media as a collective body has shifted dramatically from the center/left to the center/right over the past twenty years.  

After all, today even National Public Radio—considered by many as the last bastion of “pure” reporting—is deeply beholden to the pharmaceutical companies, the commercials of which are relentlessly heard on this so-called commercial free network.  

But I would go further.  

I would suggest that some elements of the media are not center anything, but exist for the very sake of pushing an unambiguous right-wing agenda, and have done so with astounding success.  

Under the ideological leadership of Rupert Murdoch (an Australian), Conrad Black (a Canadian), and Sun Yet Moon (a Korean), the collective media empires of these three non-Americans [ok, Murdoch, I believe, got U.S. citizenship) have redefined what the American people see, hear, and—consequently—think. 

What is more frightening, however, is how the convergence of Republican power in the White House and the Congress has transpired (and conspired) to further enhance the influence of these Right-minded ideologues.  

Lest we forget, it was this administration that led the charge against the Federal Communications Commission in order to allow folks like Murdoch and Black to purchase even more media outlets in a given region.  

So obvious was this attack on the basic principles of a free and open press that even Trent Lott—not known for his liberal views—fought vigorously against such a measure, though to no avail.  

Consequently, there are now parts of American where virtually all news—print and electronic—is filtered through the distorted Fox lens.  

In the face of such overwhelming editorial prejudice, it is understandable that the American people are being alienated not just from the United Nations but literally from the rest of the world.

Under the banner of fighting terrorism, and with the battle cry of “Remember 9/11,” this new breed of Republicans—transparently representing the interests of the affluent few in a way never before seen—has created a new isolationism more dangerous than our nation has ever known.  

And it has done so with the calculated and skillful accommodation of a few media moguls who share this curious Ayn Rand vision of America.

One might lament that the Democrats did not have the courage to stand before the American people and openly denounce this undermining of American freedom, that they failed to proudly defend and support the role of the United Nations in U.S. foreign policy.  

But that’s not what this convention was about.  

No, this was a convention designed to comfort and assuage the tiny fraction of our population that the pundits like to call “the undecided voters.”  

And in an election perhaps more rigidly polarized than any in this nation’s history, it is understandable that they would choose to do so.  

The real test of the Democrats—and of our democracy—will be what comes after the November elections.  

One can only hope that reason will prevail.          

     Email John Tessitore:  JohnTessitore@MaximsNews.com 

   Home   About Max Stamper   Key Clients   International Affairs    Media Tools  

      www.MaximsNews.com, News Network for the International Community: 

     Diplomats,  donors,  key United Nations Officials,  U.N. activists,  all Missions to the U.N.,  all NGOs,  journalists,  activists in human rights,  women's rights,  African-American rights,  peace,  the environment,  development and poverty,  public policy experts,  political figures,  and academics.  

     Syndicated globally by RSS and XML feeds, GOOGLE NEWS,  broadcast email, Blogs,  streaming video, Internet and news wire services.  For Free Subscription, RSS, or XML feeds to your website, contact: MaximsNews@MaximsNews.com