In a recent post, titled Two Corrupt Establishments, Robert Parry makes a very well presented case for why a large portion of the American public seems to be leaning towards Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump instead of hopefuls with more traditional political standings and approaches and how this threat of an upset is scaring the establishment.  By the time Robert Parry closes with "Washington's twin corrupt establishments have been dealt an unexpected and potentially lasting punch" it sounds as if we may be in for an arguably overdue Burnham-esque critical realignment.


Putting aside the observations that Parry makes, the blog this post can be found on seems to have an interesting background calling in to question it's legitimacy as a credible source.  The Smirking Chimp may have a few skeletons in its own closet.  The founder, Jeff Tiedrich, describes himself as a "Celebrity Death Haikuist" and quips on his Twitter that he "think[s] everyone is entitled to his own opinion."  While he may believe himself to be a bit of a comedic eccentric, others don't view him that way.  One fellow blogger rails against Tiedrich in a blog post titled "Smirking Chimp: The World's Worst Blog?"  Dangerous Creation's Dennis M.  writes that Tiedrich has gone so far as to comment on his work "With all due respect, fuck you. Nobody here needs or wants your validation." when Dennis M. contributed content to The Smirking Chimp under the pseudonym Socrates.  Robert Parry, a well published winner of a George Polk Journalism Award, is poorly represented by the brash actions of Tiedrich as a host.  Furthermore, we can even call in to question the legitimacy of Two Corrupt Establishments being on The Smirking Chimp as well as on Parry's own website with the modifier "Exclusive" though it could be argued that this term is frequently misused journalistically.


The critical realignment we may be experiencing is in part spurred on by a general distrust of our news sources and the off-the-mark bullshit they feed the masses.  It is sad that even this article by Robert Parry about this very thing falls prey to the scrutiny of its host that is now required to be a responsible and informed news and opinions consumer.

This election season has been just shy of one big joke.  There have been a wide range of absurd and unprofessional occurrences during this season from blatant xenophobia, to the unprofessional use of personal email to conduct classified government communication, to penis size becoming a debate issue.  The list of absurdities goes on ad nauseam and shows no sign of slowing down from the breakneck pace at which it is growing.  This has caused a majority of the public to ignore some very large issues like a thinly veiled wealth-based oligarchy in the executive branch of the US Government, the effects of a potential Bush or Clinton dynasty due to brand recognition instead of firm political ideals, or the fact that the American people as a whole are taking a reality television star seriously as a presidential hopeful.

All I can say is, "America, you have truly run amok."

Fortunately, Ken Herman has much more to say than I, and in a salty written voice reminiscent of someone on an evolutionary course to becoming Jim Hightower.  In this editorial Herman addresses a number of issues with our current entertainment-centered presidential primary.  Herman suggests that the first step to begin a path towards politics being part of candidacy debates would be the removal of the audience.  Herman describes parts of the most recent Republican debate in Detroit as a "middle-school melee" fueled in part by "audience infused energy".

In reference to one spat between Cruz and Trump, Herman writes:
"I think they would [do better] if we didn’t have debates produced at times to lean more toward verbal gladiator combat than measured discussion of the perilous issues we confront. Without a live, over-involved audience, perhaps we wouldn’t have had interplay such as this between Trump and Ted Cruz in Detroit."

Throughout the article Herman backs up his idea that a removal of live audiences would take some of the entertainment value and rally-style out of debates.  Herman provides enough information to make a convincing argument that this would be an effective first step to removing crowd-pleasing entertainment from what should be politically-centered coverage and proceedings.