One of the important components of our Superego is our conscience. Our conscience is what evokes guilt when I we do something that does not fit into our ethical and moral code. Signal guilt allows us to anticipate how we would feel if we followed through on an unacceptable impulse. At the same time, we all have Superego defects, compromises whereby our Superego "looks" the other way and allows us to rationalize or ignore transgressions; such Superego defects can be thought of a Superego lacunae, literally holes in the Superego. An everyday example can be found in those people who proclaim they are honest and would never cheat anyone yes when a clerk makes a math error in their favor, keeps the money that does not belong to them, with the rationalization that the store won't miss the money and its not so much anyway.
If we look for a Superego analogue in our body politic, the closest thing to a conscience is a functioning MSM. Along with functioning as our perceptual apparatus, the MSM's investigatory arm functions as our political conscience, ferreting out wrong doing and bringing it to our attention. When the MSM functions properly in this respect, it can alert the public and politicians to problematic situations and prevent them from turning into major scandals. This would be an analogue of signal guilt. A politician whose hand has moved too close to the till and discovers the eye of the MSM upon him will be much more likely to behave in a virtuous manner than one whose small transgressions are overlooked out of ideological sympathy. When the MSM fails in their Superego conscience function, it not only fails the American people but also creates a dangerous dynamic in our political process.
As all but the most liberal recognize the MSM has significant Superego lacunae when it comes to Democratic transgressions; this is not the favor to the Democrats that one might imagine.
Hillary Clinton may well be our next President, which makes the MSM dereliction of duty in regards to the Campaign Finance irregularities which appear to be endemic to her campaign, all the more problematic.
Our Campaign Finance laws, such as McCain-Feingold, are so complex that it is virtually impossible for any politician to raise adequate sums of money without violating some arcane provision of the law. This is one of the reasons I went from reluctant support of McCain-Feingold to reasoned opposition. Our Campaign Finance laws are anti-democratic, ultimately unenforcible, and deeply damaging to our politics and free speech. Despite the obvious failings of McCain-Feingold, I suspect most candidates attempt to follow the rules, though all probably fail in some ways. I further suspect that all Republican candidates attempt to follow the rules more assiduously than their Democratic rivals because they know that a hostile press would like nothing more than to find new scandals to pin on those they consider ideological opponents
The MSM, consciously or unconsciously, believes by doing so they are helping the "good guys." This works adequately when campaign finance irregularities can be kept under the radar. However, when campaign finance irregularities are seen to have a pattern suggesting a conscious attempt to circumvent the law, and the pattern keeps repeating, the scent of scandal that attaches to even the MSM favorites can become so powerful that it breaks through the barriers to public consciousness. With the new media offering a helping hand, the MSM gatekeeper functions are less comprehensive; in such circumstances the MSM may end up doing a serious disservice to their chosen candidates by their protective approach to potential scandals.
Hillary Clinton is now involved in her second fund raising scandal in the recent past, both involving Chinese-American donors who quite clearly are unable to afford the largess toward her campaign that has been attributed to them. Flip, at Suitably Flip, has been following the story of Hillary's fund raising imbroglios ever since Norman Hsu became almost a household name. He believes the Clinton campaign is counting on the story's complexity to discourage reporting and elicit the MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over) reaction from a tired and alienated public. In Hillary Defends Possible Straw Donor Cash With Disingenuous Straw Man Argument, he suggests: [HT: Glenn Reynolds]
If, as appears to be the case, Hillary has made the decision to bank on the scandal's complexity to save her not only from having to answer for these ubiquitous irregularities, but even from having to return the tainted funds, she may be in for a surprise. The public's Clinton scandal stamina may not have improved, but as the sordid details and immense scope of Hillary's fundraising problems continue to unfold, more and more mainstream media outlets are taking an interest.
Thus far, the New York Post and LA Times are the two MSM outlets who have written about the story while the "paper of record" is currently MIA in this story; as Flip suggests, the impact will depend importantly on how persistent the coverage is and whether or not a hook can be found. There are two related issues that should raise alarms for Hillary's supporters and opponents alike.
First, along with depending on the complexity of the issue to arouse MEGO reactions that discourage further investigation, it is clear that despite the instructive example of Monica's blue dress, the Clintons believe that they can manage the news in such a way as to minimize their exposure in this new scandal. It is certainly true that financial scandals involving Democrats typically receive little MSM interest, but the news environment has significantly changed in the last 7-8 years, and if the Clintons fail to recognize the fundamental nature of the changes, even with the example of Monica's blue dress, they will be setting themselves up for disaster.
If the fund raising scandal gains "legs" it is likely to plague the Clintons form now until the general election. This could well damage her in the election; it could even be more damaging however, if the scandal disappears and allows the Clintons to believe they have escaped another scandal.
And that is the second danger raised by he MSM Superego lacunae. If Hillary continues to receive a pass on the he story form the most important MSM outlets, and if she is elected, her administration will be a scandal waiting to happen. Without the existence of a Conscience, anticipatory signal guilt fails to warn the party when they are entering dangerous territory.
No embezzler gets caught the first time he "borrows" money from the till. His conscience having failed, he starts small, "borrows" a little with the full intent to pay it back; as time goes on it becomes easier to borrow some more and defer pay back until a more solvent time (which, of course, will never arrive.) Finally, emboldened by his success in borrowing larger and larger sums, the embezzler makes the withdrawal which can no longer be covered up and disaster strikes.
The Clintons have dodged so many scandal "bullets" that they may well think they are immune. Having survived impeachment, and protected by their spear carriers in the MSM, the feeling of invulnerability can only grow. Hilary is unlikely in the extreme to be caught in a sexual peccadillo and few of us have the stamina to fully engage in the fund raising scandals, yet it does not take much of an imagination to conjure up scenarios where Hillary's Presidency is undone by hubris and scandal.
Most 9of us survive our Superego lacunae for a variety of reasons. If the lacunae are small, they foster no more than the usual transgressions of everyday life (speeding, overestimating deductions on our tax returns, "forgetting" to declare cash income); we are assisted in behaving ethically and legally by our knowledge that society's Superego analogues (ie, the legal system) are vigilant in helping us maintain proper behavior and by our signal guilt which helps us avoid doing too many things that we would regret.
When someone shows evidence of a rather more porous Superego than usual, and too many politicians fall within such a category, they and we rely on the investigative MSM to shine the spotlight on their minor transgressions in order to provide sufficient signal guilt to avoid major transgressions. At this moment the MSM is failing in their job.
Recent Comments