Trouble in Liberal Land

Despite their control of all three branches of government, this has not been a good summer for liberal Democrats. Their health care "reform" bill, which has yet to be fully written, much less fully funded, has been exposed at town hall meetings as a power grab over life and death with the strong possibility that "do no harm" will be replaced by a utilitarian approach to treatment.

The cap-and-trade measure (dubbed "cap and tax" by the Wall Street Journal) appears in trouble. Closer scrutiny has revealed it as one more reach into our pockets by politicians who never have enough of our money.

As the first elections since President Obama's presidential victory approach, liberals are getting nervous that all this exposure is leaving them naked before an increasingly skeptical and angry public. The latest Rasmussen poll shows President Obama's approval rating has dropped to 46 percent, which, according to the Wall Street Journal, "demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries."

The Washington Post is trying to provide life support for at least one Democrat who is in trouble. In a gift for the Democratic candidate for governor of Virginia, Creigh Deeds, the Post ran a front-page story above the fold last Sunday trumpeting its "discovery" of a 20-year-old thesis written by the Republican candidate, Bob McDonnell. In that thesis, McDonnell was critical of fornicators, those who have abortions and parents -- especially employed women -- who don't spend enough time with their children.

So that late-summer vacationers might get the point, the Post ran a follow-up story on Tuesday -- again front page -- about the "uproar" created (by the Post) over the thesis. It was accompanied by an editorial critical of McDonnell's views. But on June 11, a Post editorial said, "Democrats ... will try to depict former attorney general Robert F. McDonnell ... as a right-wing zealot and Pat Robertson protege. In fact, both candidates are serious public servants with long records that deserve more careful examination. ... Mr. McDonnell's tenure as attorney general, by most accounts, has been professional and not overtly ideological."

McDonnell now says that while remaining conservative on most issues, he has changed some of his views over the last two decades.

If the Post is so concerned about the fitness of McDonnell for governor because of what he wrote in a single thesis, why hasn't it been similarly aggressive in rooting out Barack Obama's records from Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard? And does anyone -- especially McDonnell's opponent -- want to run on a pro-fornication platform? Even President Obama has said he wants to reduce the number of abortions in America. And who thinks parents spend too much time with their children?

Here is the way I believe it works at liberal universities. Some professors require their students to repeat back to them on test papers and in theses what the professors believe. Unless students hate Republicans, revile George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, renounce God, support abortion and gay rights, they can sometimes expect a lower, even a failing grade. When my wife studied for her master's degree in counseling, she felt pressured to repeat her professors' beliefs instead of stating her own. A friend with a Ph.D. told her, "Write what they want and get the degree. Then you can counsel the way you like." This is academic freedom? It sounds like indoctrination. Why is it OK at liberal universities to tell professors what they want to hear, but not OK at conservative ones to do the same?

The Left is worried not only about the Virginia governor's race, but also the contest in New Jersey, where incumbent Governor Jon Corzine is 10 points behind Republican challenger Chris Christie, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid isn't up for re-election until next year, but he already trails his likely opponent, Danny Tarkanian, by 11 points.

For growing numbers of people, the elections in Virginia and New Jersey can't come quickly enough and November 2010 is a date being circled in red on many calendars.

Contrary to its public face, the press is really a capitalistic entity at it core existence level.

It exists to sell audience to advertisers. Consequently, in all of its guises, e.g., magazines, newspapers, TV, radio, etc., it does what ever it can to attract an audience.

Outrageous headlines, outrageous advocacy, outrageous scandals, etc., have traditionally always attracted audiences. For example, the public sees (or hears) a headline such as Certain City Council Members Agree to Poison in the City’s Water for Money and they buy the paper, listen to the broadcast, etc., only to find out that, by a narrow majority, a new chlorine dispenser purchase for the water plant has been delayed to avoid a tax increase. There is typically no information on whether the decision was sound and justified. (The lack of such information increases potential controversy, and with that, potential audience, whether appropriate, or not.) Still, the outrageous headline delivered the maximum audience to the advertisers who bought ads for that paper or broadcast.

Justified outrage over real sources of such can be a pretty rare thing. Even when there are potentially real sources of outrage, they can be time and labor intensive to find and document. Additionally, false accusations over sources of outrage can lead to expensive lawsuits or worse. From some perspectives it could be worse that real sources of outrage might result in the removal from office of certain politicians who support certain “politically correct” causes.

As a result, manufactured outrage is often chosen as a far easier and quicker way to meet the print or broadcast cycle. Beyond time convenience, manufactured outrage is, also, less labor intensive and can be targeted or shaped to potentially avoid expensive lawsuits. All that is required is a little cynical foresight and some care to omit certain details or imply certain things rather than state them outright. As a bonus, such unsubstantiated implications also tend to “draw more audience.” Equally as important to some is the ability to “tailor” manufactured outrage to minimize potential damage to those politicians who support the “proper” causes.

Consequently, media moguls, in order to keep selling advertising, hire the best generators of manufactured outrage they can find. Typically, the most outrageous ideas come from the liberals/progressives, e.g., eugenics, euthanasia, oligarchy, peace-at-any-price, “homosexual rights,” abortion, anti-Americanism, selective “white guilt,” etc. These generators are so steeped in liberal/progressive philosophy and propaganda that if they weren’t in the beginning, they soon become “true believers.” As “true believers” they are completely unaware that they serve a completely the capitalistic role of just “drawing an audience” like a midway barker at the old fairgrounds.

To avoid being a “rube” and falling for the barker’s huckster approach, the public must know how to spot the i>manufactured outrage. Unfortunately, that takes a “real” education (versus indoctrination) and effort.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.