Medium Is The Message: Ilhan Omar, Social Media, and Making News

Democratic US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) set off a firestorm on Sunday with a one-line Tweet on a third rail topic. The aftermath continues four days later. Canadian philosopher and public intellectual Marshal McLuhan famously observed that “the medium is the message.” How is messaging changing with the advent of such radically different mediums? Is news/reality accelerating? Ludwig von Mises Institute President Jeff Deist joins the discussion…in today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

26 thoughts on “Medium Is The Message: Ilhan Omar, Social Media, and Making News”

    1. I think there’s a good chance that she broke something loose that is going to bounce around the 2020 election.

      NOBODY is going to out-pro-Israel Donald “Most Pro-Israel President in History.”

      So Democratic contenders have the choice of taking on the Israel lobby or just being see as Trump Mini-Me-Toos. I think at least one major contender will decide to do the former.

        1. Highly unlikely. She’s an associate of the Adelsons, of Christians United for Israel/John Hagee, etc. She was one of the few “progressive Democrats” who attended Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress.

          Also, if she did switch sides and take on the Israeli lobby, she’d probably end up having to confront questions about her association with Modi’s nationalists in India and her promotion of THAT “special relationship.”

          1. Hell if I know. I just hope it happens.

            The first major Democratic contender to take on the Israeli lobby may not win the nomination or the presidency, but he or she will change the conversation.

          2. You pretty much answered your own question: Bernie, etc. no one will run against Israel in 2020. And I’m not suggesting Bernie is even inclined that way.

            There are domestic policy positions Dems can contrast themselves with Trump on.

          3. “She’s an associate of the Adelsons, of Christians United for Israel/John Hagee, etc.,” you write. Reference please. Sounds a bit strange since she visited Assad and has been in the forefront of getting the US out of Syria, not exactly Israel’s dream – and ceasing all our other wars and nation building in the Middle East. With friends like that, Israel does not need enemies. So I would like evidence since there is an apparent contradiction.
            p.s. I find her association with Modi is not entirely convincing. True she was photographed with him but also with his opposition, I believe. (I do believe she is a serious Hindu and I suspect that is where her heightened sense of duty comes from.). One must be very careful because the Establishment hates her and has been either ignoring her or undermining her from the day before she announced. Lots of garbage about her out there.

          4. She’s had her picture taken with the Adelsons and her campaigns have been funded by them. I forget whether the picture was when she gave a speech to Christians United For Israel, or when she accepted the pro-Israel “Hero” award from Rabbi Boteach’s organization.

            A big part of her large donor base is Sang Parivar/Hindutva/Vishwa Hindu Parishad events which raise money for her campaigns with BJP politicians as speakers. She’s a board member of Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America, the US wing of the violent anti-Muslim group based in India.

          5. In fairness, these are things that would only really move to the front burner as issues if she became a strong competitor for the Democratic nomination. In the RealClearPolitics polling average, she’s in 11th place with 1.3%, ahead of only Kirsten Gillibrand.

            Yes, there are come-from-behind victories in some contests, and a strong anti-establishment feeling among Democrats this year that she began tapping into in 2016 when she resigned as a DNC vice-chair to endorse Bernie Sanders. But that doesn’t mean a US Representative from a small state is likely to be one of those come-from-behinds. Her problem is not a problem with her policy positions, etc. — it’s a problem with her position when it comes to the ability to run a strong campaign.

            There’s a reason why presidential nominees are usually former or sitting governors, Senators, or vice-presidents. They’ve already got name recognition. They’ve already got important contacts and likely big donors lined up for ANYTHING they decide to do. They’ve already got friends at RNC or DNC to pull the strings that get them more spotlight within their parties.

            If Gabbard can get past all that and at least into the middle of the pack, THEN the big attack guns roll out. The anti-gay stuff, etc. deployed right when she announced to see if they could shove her out right away. She’s weathered that, but she’s weathered it in place, not bounced up in the polls from it.

          6. Too many of her potential supporters are Trumplicans. If Trump is clear to win my state, I might vote for her in the primary though.

          7. I’ve been hearing about these weird shadowy connections for years but as Cratylus pointed out, it doesn’t seem to have had a big affect on her maverick policies. It’s possible Adelson just threw money at her because he believed it would weaken the DNC. That doesn’t make excepting it any less gross but I doubt Adelson would support her in a serious presidential bid. The Hindu nationalist stuff does creep me out. I mostly just want to get her on stage close enough to punch Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren in the tits, metaphorically speaking, of coarse.

            She doesn’t look a thing like Jesus, but she talks like McGovern, like you remember when you were young….

            No fans of The Killers here? Oh well. Tough crowd.

          8. Nothing wrong with Hindu nationalism per se. It just depends on how she applies it.

            My concern would be whether she might decide the US needs vastly more Indian immigrants.

          9. I can’t think of anything about America that more Indian immigrants wouldn’t make better. My wife works with several of them, and they’re just about the best people I know. When I lived in St. Louis, it seemed like half the medical students and doctors in the Central West End were Indian, and I lived near a neighborhood where more “middle class” type Indians seemed to have congregated. That neighborhood was well-kept, low-crime, and if I wanted particular spices or foods there were a couple of markets with e.g. fresh naan, turmeric root, etc.

          10. I don’t dislike Indians, but I generally want fewer immigrants. About the only reason I vote Republican is immigration. Trump was different of course; he offered more than just the one issue.

          11. Hindu nationalism wouldn’t be so bad if it didn’t come with a hefty dash of Islamaphobia and imperialism. Kashmir is a Desi Palestine because Hindu nationalists feel they have the Shiva given right to cleanse it of the mongrels it belongs to.

          12. Hindu imperialism? Muslims can be aggressive also. Before Hindus were aggressors, they were victims. Whenever religion and nation get involved, matters become complicated. That’s partly why so many come to desire a world free of nation and faith.

            We were told how the Albanian Muslims were victims in Kosovo. Today, it’s the Christian Serbs who need to be protected in Kosovo. And elsewhere, when even Buddhists get violent (against Muslims), you know matters are complicated.

          13. I never said all Muslims are victims. I simply stated a fact, that India’s modern day Hindu Nationalists are violently revanchist. They believe the whole subcontinent belongs to them. Their victims have included Sikhs and even fellow Hindus of lesser and/or different sects but Muslims are their favorite scapegoat and their rights are routinely violated in India.

            Yes, matters are complicated, but what’s not complicated is right and wrong and bigotry is wrong. It’s wrong when Hindus bash Muslims in India. It’s wrong when Muslims kill elderly Roma women in Kosovo with NATO’s consent. It’s wrong when Christians burn people alive in Jamaica for being queer. And it’s wrong when Salafis slaughter whole villages of Assyrian Christians in Iraq.

            I appose abhorrent behavior, regardless of which god is used to defend it. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and most Pagan sects are religions that prize peace. It’s the people who hijack them for their own vain purposes that weaponize them. That’s why a generally disapprove of organized religion. Spirituality is something too private and powerful to be left in the hands of mortals.

          14. Those same bigots though might care deeply for their own people. Take away their faith, and they might become worse in some ways. That’s kind of the riddle. Also, small groups seem to out-compete disorganized individuals; those groups need to be united by something. Christianity seems to encourage (a degree of) individualism but to also discourage small groups that could threaten the mass.

          15. Kashmir seems like a great test bed for panarchy, if either state with skin in the game would allow it. Instead of 50%+1 of a population of millions (or a state claiming to represent some other population ratio) decreeing that everyone in the place be subject to one state or the other, let Kashmiris choose their state at an individual level, create a shared “basic law” for the absolute necessities (e.g. murder, rape, armed robbery) and constitute some kind of arbitration system for conflicts between parties not consenting to be subject to the same state.

          16. Your right. They really have found themselves in a Rojava style scenario, caught between warring bully-states. I would trust Khan more than Modi to allow something that dynamic, but the generals would never let him get away with that. Pakistan is grassy-knoll country. Politicians have gotten popped for simply suggesting far less. The truly f**ked up thing is that the Kashmiris best hope would probably be if India and Pakistan actually did destroy each other. If it wasn’t for Nuclear fall-out, that is.

    2. In fact, what she did really really wrong and caused the apology is that she ran for the Demolican Party. Of course, there’s a tradeoff, because she wouldn’t get elected otherwise, but it guarantees her eventual silencing.

      1. Republicans are demographically doomed. Any who want to be President should stick with the Dems. It’s possible some Republican might break through after a decade of appalling Dem rule, but it’d be a challenge. Maybe something like Brasil could happen here.

Comments are closed.