Last night I did not watch the Golden Globes. I had better things to do, which included lamenting the loss of my Giants to the Packers. But of course, I was not immune to the various Facebook posts complaining of Streep’s anti-Trump, Leftist rant.
Let me be clear: (A) Streep is entitled to her opinion; (B) I am not at all surprised that an elitist multimillionaire dislikes Trump; (C) it was a Hollywood event on television, thus leftist propaganda comes with the popcorn.
That stated, it is annoying and it highlights a major problem for Hollywood: they simply can’t understand their “fellow” Americans.
A quick reminder of human nature: no one likes to hear how bad they are. No one likes to be evangelized. No one likes to hear someone else tell them how wrong they are.
…and yet, every time the Left opens its mouth, it does just that.
We are racists… we are bigots… we are sexists… we are sexual assault apologists… we should open our borders wider… we should pay more taxes… we should love the Affordable Care Act… we are wrong, they are right…
The drumbeat gets louder, more predictable, and steadier. It is also becoming easier to ignore.
Still, the Left continues to lecture the rest of us – the American public.
Such conceit is incredibly shocking, given how badly they have lost Nationally. They are now literally a party of ONLY New York and California (to include the socialist satellite states that border them). Yes, it is true that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. But in the meat of those 2.5 million more popular votes, they miss a crucial reality: they lost the rest of the United States by a wide margin.
How bad was it? Real bad!
Hillary Clinton won California by 4.25 million votes and New York by 1.75 million votes. Consequently, only two states accounted for nearly 10% of Clinton’s popular vote totals. Strip those two states out and Trump wins by about 3.3 million votes. That is nearly the same margin by which Obama beat Mitt Romney.
In 2009, Democrats controlled approximately 60% of all state legislature seats. Today they control about 40% – a nearly forty point swing in status nation-wide. Meanwhile, 24 of 50 states are now thoroughly controlled by Republicans in the House, Senate, and Governorships – up from 14 in 2009. The Republicans control 33 of 50 state legislatures. Democrats, by contrast, slipped from 20 to 6… one being, predictably, California.
Even Leftist New York has a Republican Senate.
At this stage, as the communist online news source the DailyKos lamented, Republicans control 81% of the Nation’s population and the United States is only one state away from the two-thirds majority required to initiate a Republican-led Constitutional Amendment.
Thus, the problem for Meryl Streep, Hollywood, and the Mainstream Media writ large.
When someone like Meryl Streep goes on a sanctimonious rant, she is speaking to a United States that is more conservative than at any point in its recorded history.
Of course, she is ill-equipped to recognize the changes in the United States. Her neighborhood probably plays a factor. It is hard to see the “reddening” of the United States from Beverley Hills or Tribeca.
Enter, Radio Moscow.
Radio Moscow was the Soviet Union’s answer to Radio Free Europe, the BBC, and other state-run propaganda programs. In essence, like its Western counterparts, Radio Moscow attempted to inform publics across the world as to the benefits of Marxism and the successes of the Soviet Union. They mixed well-crafted news with entertainment. While never outwardly lying, they would severely bend the truth. In this regard, Radio Moscow was largely a failure in the developed West, which had multiple alternatives, but did well in underdeveloped countries, such as those found in East Africa.
But the reasons Radio Moscow failed to compete in the West can provide important lessons to Leftists in Hollywood and the Mainstream Media.
Radio Moscow proved uncompetitive for two key reasons: (1) it was unable to connect with the psyche of the American and Western publics; (2) it shot itself in the foot with its own success in areas within which it never really needed to compete.
First, the connection problem.
Despite cool music, popular programming, and interesting alternative news, Radio Moscow – which was abundantly available in the United States for those who sought to listen – was never able to connect with the people it sought to persuade. This was not merely a political ideology failure. Rather, this was an extension of their geographic removal from those whom they intended to reach.
Radio Moscow’s correspondents attempted to connect with audiences they never understood, while attempting to carry out the Leftist strategies of the Kremlin. Those Leftist strategies were (A) create a wedge between Blacks and Whites as it pertains to issues of race relations and racism, (B) cultivate fifth columns of Leftist sympathizers, especially those who may feel marginalized in the United States (e.g., Blacks, Women, Hispanics, Homosexuals, etc), and (C) galvanize their support for pro-Soviet political and economic policies in conjunction with sympathetic White males building coalitions large enough to drive American political decisions to the Left.
Consequently, the target audience of Radio Moscow was never White Men – a group Radio Moscow knew it could not win. Rather, they sought to eat away at the edges of American society with groups who felt disenfranchised by the status quo. This link is a good example of a 1985 Radio Moscow broadcast that attempts to achieve that objective.
Two problems: (1) White Men, who number almost 37% of the population, still play a significant political role and they played an even larger role during the Cold War; (2) White Men in Moscow were never able to truly connect with those whom they sought to influence.
It was too hard for White Men in Moscow to connect with Black Men in South Carolina. The choice of style and music was wrong. The communications style seemed disjointed. Thus, while Black Men simply wanted an opportunity to live and earn the same as their White counterparts, Radio Moscow’s demonization of things that Black voters wanted began to fall on deaf ears.
Apply this disconnect to the 21st Century.
Whether you like Hillary Clinton or not, consider the absurd image of a wealthy White Woman in a $12,000 outfit telling a crowd of underprivileged Black voters that she not only feels their pain, but that their pain is caused by greed.
That is much like Nikita Khrushchev extolling the “gender neutral” society of the Soviet Union, while questioning the corrosive impact of dishwashers on an American woman’s sense of purpose and simultaneously holding onto the notion that Soviet women enjoy washing the dishes.
The image and words do not match the desires of the audience. That is why Obama succeeded where Clinton failed. It was not merely his rhetoric that resonated. It was the optics, and unlike Clinton, Obama could articulate to his aspirational audience why they “should” want the good life. By contrast, Clinton spent a great deal of time lambasting the very life she lived and they wanted.
The other issue for Radio Moscow, however, was harder for them to realize and it is a shared problem with Hollywood.
Radio Moscow successfully vilified the one ally they always needed in the United States and Europe: White Males. Consequently, they eroded their own ability to gain the trust of the communities they hoped to flip Left because they were never able to build upon the coalition they needed to be successful.
In other words, by targeting White Males as a subject of oppression and ridicule, Soviet psyops using Radio Moscow accidentally shot themselves in the foot.
As I stated earlier, Radio Moscow was successful in areas within which it had a more natural connection, such as East Africa. Impoverished areas of the world were not burdened by comparisons on status and available material desires. Thus, “a better future” resonated; arguments over dishwashers did not. This enabled a fast moving sweep of pro-Soviet, pro-Marxist sympathies in areas that were ripe for an anti-White, anti-Colonialism message.
By the 1970s, only a few countries in the Southern tip of Sub-Saharan Africa were liberal-democracies (South Africa being a limited-democracy). The rest of the continent joined a nearly universal, global movement toward pro-Soviet and/or anti-Western authoritarian regimes with controlled economies. By 1975, less than 25% of the world was considered “free.”
With that global movement, influences into Western society arrived. Initially led by a Leftist intelligentsia in academia, a Leftist push in the West, driven by a few White Male sympathizers and minority empowerment groups tried to dramatically change the West. It’s first manifestation failed. Why?
It never got White Male support.
Simply put, as folks looked at the comparative failings of the rest of the world compared to their own relatively comfortable position, they chose the comfort and security of something that was initially designed by White Men: the United States.
To undo that design would require individuals to genuinely believe that their world would be better without institutions initially introduced by free, Western societies.
Yes, it was true that the average labor employee in the US did not like what he perceived to be exploitative corporate practices. No doubt, he wanted to earn more money. But the relative comfort with which he lived exceeded that of his Soviet counterpart. He would therefore have to believe that giving more of his hard-earned money to the state would improve his position.
Not only did he not believe it, there was no voice to talk him into it.
By the time my hypothetical laborer opened-up to such an argument, during the Carter-led West’s malaise of the late-1970s, Radio Moscow and the overall anti-White male strategic communications of the Soviet Union ensured that the possible Leftist convert had already tuned-out. They pushed too far. They also vilified him (his race and gender), personally.
Consequently, he turned to Reagan… TWICE!
Today, that dynamic has manifested in Donald Trump. Radio Moscow in its previous form is long dead. Leftist movements, however, are not. Receiving significant funding from Left-leaning, globalist entities that seek lower cost employees and an expansion of global consumerism (a uniform proletariat), groups like the Tides Foundation and the Ruckus Society promote the same message that failed from 1950-1980: anti-White, anti-Christian propaganda.
Of course, this time the Left believes it has an edge. Unlike Radio Moscow, the new Left have Hollywood and New York to lead their socially transformative agenda. They were close to being successful. But again, as evidenced by the sharp pitch to the Right, the Left went too far with its demonization of White Male and Christian bashing.
Choosing to tune out, the American people sent a very loud message. They voted overwhelmingly Republican – unless you lived in California or New York. Meanwhile, folks like Meryl Streep are not listening. Thankfully, nor is the Democratic Party. Both might as well reside in Moscow circa 1950. They are so disconnected from the rest of the United States that they do not realize how condescending their message seems.
The Soviet Union and its propaganda apparatus failed because it ultimately tried to sell the unconsumable on the backs of that which still constitutes the largest single voting bloc in the United States: that White men are the problem and the society they created must be fully unraveled.
To sell such a message successfully, the average person would have to look at the Middle East or Mexico and think, “Yes, that is a better alternative to North Carolina or Connecticut.”
The average White Woman would have to believe that her life would be improved through more Islamic immigration.
The average White Male would have to believe his life would be improved if it were led by a remote federal government that denies his right to worship God freely.
Defending a status quo that works for the majority is not racist. It is common sense, self-preservation. Yelling at them will not convert them to your cause. Telling them they are wrong, when the rest of the world seems to be falling apart is a hard argument to sell – whether it be from a Soviet Political Commissar or Meryl Streep.
Thus, the lesson from Radio Moscow: when you attempt to change a society from outside its borders by telling it how bad it is, you will eventually fail to deliver any message at all.