We need better millionaires

Huffington Post contributor Brent Budowsky restates in an HP post from Saturday the perennial complaint that, while the right-wing noise machine is well-funded and run by the fanatically committed, progressive media management is lackluster at best and apathetic at worst.

I don’t think there’s anything to disagree with in what he says.

On the other hand, I don’t think things are going to change either.

As he says, it’s a matter of commitment. Despite the war, despite the economy, despite the gross mismanagement of the country, despite the raping of the Constitution, far too many people in this country are still far too comfortable.

Look at it this way – the Republicans offer wealthy people something concrete. They offer tax cuts. They offer deregulation. They offer privatization. They offer war with its attendant opportunities to profit.

When they’re not echoing the Republicans platform, Democrats offer the wealthy very little. Increased access to health care? Not a big issue for the rich. Protecting social security? Ditto. Better public education? Nope. Stronger environmental regulation? Costs money. Etc. Etc.

Even when the Democrats do offer incentives and tax breaks to the wealthy, they tend to expect something in return, while Republicans just give those things away for free.

All of which means rich liberal people tend to be liberal out of conscience or long-term vision instead of selfishness.

Trust me on this, people will tend to go a lot farther for personal gain than they will for the good of others and instant gratification produces far more zealots than anticipated distant benefits.

Which is why the Democrats cannot rely on rich liberals to fund and manage a liberal mass movement.

That’s not to say that many, many wealthy liberals are not doing great work. It’s to say that many, many wealthy (and middle class) liberals aren’t feeling enough of a personal investment in the political process. They’re comfy. They were comfy under Clinton. They’re comfy under Bush. Deep down they anticipate being comfy under whoever is running the country. When they talk about people in need, they’re talking about other people, and, while that’s a wonderful thing, if you can go home after a day of activism to a nice big house with plenty to eat in the cabinets and fridge, gorgeous clothes in the closets and no worries about how you’re going to pay for any of that, or for your medications, or for your kids’ education, or for your parents’ nursing home bills, you’re quite likely to feel that you’d rather keep be comfy than risk losing what you have by pushing too hard, too fast.

That’s why Air America, despite being the largest liberal megaphone in America, just isn’t relevant. The people running it do their “part”, but don’t feel any real compulsion to force major change.

Rupert Murdoch pours his money into getting the Republican message out because he makes money in direct proportion to how well that message is disseminated among his network’s viewers. If Murdoch helps get a Republican elected, he’s going to directly benefit financially.

That’s not really true of the relationship between the owners of Air America and Democratic politicians.

But, there is cause for hope. (And cause for fear on the other side.) That is because people who are not wealthy can finally get their message out to large numbers of their fellow citizens, and more are doing so every day.

I don’t know what effect the Internet is going to have on this year’s elections, or on the ones in 2008. I do know that there are signs that a genuine liberal media is taking shape, being built by individuals who start their own blogs or produce their own web videos and podcasts. In some cases, these peoples’ commitment and efforts have built them audiences of hundreds of thousands of regular visitors/viewers/listeners.

It’s my belief those people are the ones who will build the new liberal media into a powerful force. We’ll just have to wait and see whether they accomplish that in time to help reverse the course we’re on.