Replies

I think the current tendency amongst the liberal elite who are defining the agenda for their party right now is that they are spending an inordinate amount of time focusing on the notion that it is the medium rather than the message that is at fault, inasmuch as they perceive they are not being properly understood.

Thus we see Mr. Lakoff lamenting the rise of conservative think tanks and conservative radio talk show hosts, as a sign that conservatives are better at getting their message defined and distributed than the "progressives". Mr Lakoff is obviously convinced that progressive ideas , if only properly packaged and marketed , would be a big seller amongst the electorate.

I would suggest it is quite the opposite. The very appellation ' progressive' represents 80 yrs of media capture by those who promote liberal ideas -- it is a term rich in symbolism , and drips dark with portent when spoken by an NPR host, or Peter Jennings , or Dan Rather, who understand that a progressive idea is always a good one if so labelled. After all, who can oppose something labelled as 'progress', when opposed against 'conservative', which is 'status quo' and stodgy and definitely not hip.

Ninety percent of media reporters describe themselves as progressive or liberal, and the number of university and college faculty members who describe themselves as conservative is in the single digit percentages -- they're all liberal or progressive. Its hard to make a cogent argument that there is not a cadre of influential citizens promulgating 'progressive' ideas right now -- the argument just doesn't wash, regardless of how many conservative talk show hosts or think tanks there may be.

The problem, as I see it is a lack of new progressive ideas -- ideas that go beyond those that have already been tried and failed, like the New Deal and the Great Society. The medium for transmitting these 'new ideas' , when they become available, is already in place. The current failure of progressive ideas is a result of their failure to capture the imagination and votes of the electorate, not a failure of the medium.

I saw the author Tom Wolfe speak a couple of years ago, and one of his topics in a rambling two hour talk was "The Seminal Event of the 20th Century". He listed a number of things: cars, planes, computers, space travel.

But he settled on the fall of communism, because it was an idea that had haunted an entire century and claimed untold millions of lives. Yet it was put to death without a shot being fired by a man who his enemies labled a 'dunce', and the irrefutable proof was there for all to see.

That is powerful stuff. Subsequent movements to the left in this country have been stymied by unfettered communications among the masses (the internet).

Incidently, Wolfe spoke just yesterday at the Chicago humanities festival (and accepted an award, I'm told).

Asked if Bush is a 'great' president, he replied "The results aren't in. If he succeeds in Iraq and Afghanistan, then yes, he'll rank among the greats. If not, he'll be consigned to the dust bin of history. But so far, he appears to 'have it'."

You can imagine how the liberal aunts in my family took that statement.

< grin >