Monday, July 9, 2012

Michael Savage: Hypocrite or Sympathizer?

Anyone one who's listened to Michael Savage realizes that his beliefs are far more cacophonous than any John Cage piece. The question is whether his contradictions represent artful uniqueness like a John Coltrane album as he would have us believe, or the ravings of a sardonic con-man of the political establishment. This would lead us to the conclusion that he is an establishment figure who sympathizes with the liberty movement, or a cynical hypocrite trying to take advantage of its momentum without disposing people to support its representative, Ron Paul.

Here are a few of Savage's contradictions:

Donald Trump
Savage has deemed Donald Trump as his ideal, nationalist presidential candidate.

Savage has ridiculed Rahm Emanuel along with his brother Ezekiel for their beliefs on Healthcare.

Donald Trump contributed a significant amount of money to Rahm Emanuel's gubernatorial campaign, in addition to the campaigns of liberals like Harry Reid.
So Savage permits his ideal candidates to be donors to liberals.

Ron Paul
Before the election in August of 2011, Michael Savage had Ron Paul on his show, and seemed to enjoy listening to his positions on the Federal Reserve and banking.

During the election in early 2012, Savage called Ron Paul supporters anti-semitic for disliking the obviously Jewish-sounding financial institution Goldman Sachs, in spite of the fact that Michael Savage himself had bashed Goldman Sachs routinely in the past. Michael Savage, an ardent Zionist, called Ron Paul a Jew hater for his opinions concerning the Gaza strip. (Ron Paul's entire economic philosophy was developed primarily by two Jewish men: Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard.) Savage actually stated that Ron Paul is a progressive who may want to raise taxes on the rich, an impossibility for anyone familiar with Ron Paul's belief in Austrian Economics and liberty. Savage equivocated Paul's desire to reduce the bloated "Defense" budget to calling for its elimination, and concluded that all fans of the "crackpot" Ron Paul were people whose minds have been made feeble by excessive use of marijuana. (Incidentally, Savage himself once smoked marijuana and also appeared to like Ron Paul when he had him on his show a few months earlier.)

After the election was well over with, a man called in and extolled Ron Paul on Savage's show, saying that the establishment wouldn't let a good man like Ron Paul get through. Savage agreed with him.
So before Ron Paul gained any traction, Savage liked him. As Ron Paul started to come close to Romney in some polls, Savage called Paul and his supporters anti-semites and nuts, and now that Paul has conceded the race, it's safe for Savage to like Ron Paul again. Many fail to realize that talk radio personalities can behave like politicians. Just as Romney tries to take both sides of some issues, so does Savage insofar as he can get Ron Paul people to listen without disposing any of his other listeners to like Ron Paul. Savage even stated before he went on a rant against Ron Paul that he lamented that his Paulite listeners might abandon him for doing so, similar to how Rush's Buchananite fans abandoned him after Rush attacked Pat Buchanan in 1996 in favor of Bob Dole. When it comes down to it, Savage supports establishment candidates such as Romney.

It's no surprise that Mitt Romney's Bain Capital owns a controlling interest in Clear Channel, Michael Savage's syndicator. They also syndicate Limbaugh, so may explain why both Savage and Limbaugh fervently liked Romney in 2008 and in 2012.

Savage portends to be an "independent", but when it comes to candidate endorsements, he is no different whatsoever from Rush Limbaugh, the quintessential waterboy for the Republican Party. Savage's opinions may differ from Rush's but his allegiances are exactly the same. For example, Rush believes Sarah Palin to be a female messiah, whereas Savage thinks she's a dopey cowgirl. Yet both adamantly advocated voting for McCain/Palin.

Maybe Savage's role is to convince moderates, independents, and other disenfranchised types into thinking they're being independent by voting for establishment Republicans. Savage's method is to state that Democrats are such raving Communists that our only hope is to get Bush/Romney type Republicans elected. This is not only a false dilemma but a Faustian bargain, as such Republicans will merely slow things down and not put things in reverse course.

Perhaps Savage must work within a paradigm of supporting establishment Republicans in order to keep his job and avoid being thrown off air by Bain Capital. Perhaps Savage is doing all he can to support freedom and maintain his job. By at least having Ron Paul on his show, he gave him some publicity. In the past Savage has even questioned the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He has compared the hostility the Irish had for the British with Palestinians' hostility for Israelis while discussing the film "Shake Hands with the Devil". Savage was very critical of the TARP bailouts and of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, saying he belonged in a Just for Men beard dye commercial. It is frustrating for his Ron Paul-supporting fans to hear such talk and then see him endorse Romney. Savage could have bucked his syndicator and endorsed the real conservative, Ron Paul, but he chose otherwise.

To be fair, Savage consistently takes some non-Ron Paul positions on his show. Savage has always warned of the "threat" of Iran, referring to A-mad as "The Hitler of Our Time". Ron Paul wants to enter negotiations with A-mad. Savage vehemently opposes legalizing drugs and associates proponents thereof with George Soros. Paul believes the federal government has no authorization under the constitution to enforce drug prohibition and believes people have the right to with their bodies what they please. Savage supports Gitmo; Paul opposes it. Savage supports the use of torture, Paul opposes it. Savage has also stated that if any terrorist attack were to happen, Obama would be responsible for not doing enough to prevent it. Ron Paul has stated that prosecuting crimes before they happen undermines the bill of rights and entails giving up liberty for alleged security. (Many may remember Ron Paul's debate with Gingrich on preventing terrorist attacks.) So it seems like Savage would have to compromise on these beliefs to support Paul.

A strange incident occurred when Savage called Ron Paul a communist. Libertarianism esteems individualism and small government, whereas communist strives for collectivism and big government. At first it may seem like Savage is a complete idiot for uttering such a statement. But the statement actually makes sense if one views the world only from a foreign policy perspective, with the Neo-con Republicans on one side versus the consortium of left-communists and libertarians who oppose US attempts to manipulate the world scene to benefit elite US businesses and banks. For example, a Neo-con would be concerned whether a nation like Iran had a ruler who defers to oil men and multinational corporations. He would also be harshly critical of nations like Venezuela and Libya who don't play ball with the big boys. An example of Savage following this line of thought occurred when he expressed contempt for Manuel Zelaya, a leftist president of Honduras who tried to steal the election in 2006. The nation's supreme court ruled that the pro-western Roberto Micheletti would take his place. During a presidential debate neo-con warmonger Rick Santorum echoed Savage's sentiment when he chastised the US for not "standing behind" Micheletti, because at the time the Obama administration seemed to favor Zelaya. Paul responded to Santorum by stating that the US shouldn't pick sides in other nations' conflicts and should instead pursue a broad policy of free trade with all nations. For failing to pick a side, Savage would probably label Paul in the same camp as the left-wing Obama administration which favored Zelaya: a communist. Anyone who opposes wars in the middle east, most of them benefiting only Israel, is a communist in Savage's mind. This is how the neo-con mind works: you're either with them or against them on foreign policy. Savage and his neo-con cohorts like Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh are the fruition of the marriage between warhawks and Zionists which took place during the Vietnam era. Just as people like William F. Buckley believed in wars like Vietnam to fight world communism, Savage believes in action to topple Israel's adversaries and nationalistic or socialist opponents of the international business interests of elites in the US. Those who oppose eliminating these badguys are still called communists, just as opponents of the Vietnam war would have been.
Lately, it seems the conviction has gone out of Savage's voice. He now sounds insincere, like he's faking it and just wants to play nice. Maybe it's true that Savage really doesn't care that much about politics, and would rather talk about cooking or dogs as he so often does on his show. Perhaps the politics along with his "savage" persona are all an act.

However, Savage does have strong beliefs about some things. Consider this video of him ridiculing some people for filming on duty cops with their video cameras. Savage has always been very pro-police. He also has strong convictions when it comes to supporting moderates like Romney and Jerry Brown who want to grow the police state. Savage consistently advocates low taxes, which his beloved Romney would seem to deliver on, but as we stated earlier, Savage laughably posited that Ron Paul would raise them.

On other issues, Savage seems to be faking it. Savage is a strong opponent of Obamacare, but hasn't complained much about Romney's Romneycare. Savage endlessly complains about illegal immigration, but supports Romney who was endorsed by the open-border George HW Bush and who probably doesn't want to stop it. Savage and Ron Paul criticize Fed Chairman Bernanke while Romney has praised him. Savage is willing to compromise on healthcare, monetary policy, and illegal immigration for Romney but was unwilling to compromise his Hawkish views on Iran and the Palestinians for Ron Paul.

Perhaps it is true that Savage is a Zionist before anything else. Although many pro-Israel people supported Ron Paul, most pro-Israel people are not satisfied with just supporting Israel but insist on decimating Israel's rivals, most notably, Iran. Anything less is considered to be anti-semitic to such people.

Regardless, Savage's show along with others syndicated by Clear Channel such as Hannity and Limbaugh are unspeakably boring now that the primaries are over. They involve nothing but psychological techniques to get people to vote "No-bama" (Romney) in 2012 despite the fact that Romney is almost the same person. They say things like "Romney may have done x that was bad, but Obama did y which was worse, making Obama a hypocrite for insulting Romney." And "Look how the liberal media is unfairly criticizing Romney." It's all leveraging to rev up people to vote for one of the most boring, pro-establishment presidential candidates in history that they supported: Mitt Willard Romney.

Savage had to compromise somewhere, and chose to do so with any beliefs that might lead one to support Ron Paul. Insofar as he compromises, he is indeed a hypocrite. But it seems less likely that he is a sympathizer with liberty or Ron Paul because it was so easy for him to issue calumnies at Paul and endorse Romney, again. His sympathy seems to be superficial and probably geared toward getting listeners.

Savage will ride off into the sunset of retirement while obsessing over sparse terrorist attacks, raking in the dough, and supporting faux-alternatives to Obama, when he could gotten behind the Ron Paul Revolution.