Replies

Two fallacies, right out of the box. That Joe McCarthy damaged the cause of anti-Communism, and that liberals, in the expression of their belief that America does not represent the best example in history of human endeavour in the realm of human rights, opportunities, and achievement, do not practice treason. Joe McCarthy was a lonely voice in speaking out against what had become an almost abject surrender to Communist influence, and the resulting din of shrieks of the sympathizers who had been exposed almost drowned out any voices supportive of Joe McCarthy.

Liberals, in their almost pathological defense of the underdog, ANY underdog, have jumped to the cause of practically anybody who has a grievance with the way government is administered. Perhaps it matters not that this trait kicks in during both Democrat and Republican administrations, but the Democrat administrations have a tendency to co-opt and integrate the protest movement with their national platform and legislative policy. There are many legitimate objections to how policy is carried out, and there should be opportunity, at least in hindsight, to explain why this or that particular line of reasoning was used in making this policy.

But that would require the parties involved to keep the discussion at some rational, dispassionate arena of ideas. The rhetoric, and the decibel level, have been raised in many instances by whoever has the biggest bullhorn, and can raise the most raucous crowds. The raucous crowds take on the appearance of (poorly-organized) armies, who seem to share the objectives and interests of external enemies of the United States, of nations and organizations that have already visited harm upon the United States.

Oh, the spokespersons of this ragtag mob say, that was only in response to the great injustices visited upon these nations and organizations by the United States at some previous time, and the US should pay reparations, not engage in retribution. The US should not engage in self-defense, but rectify the situation immediately.

Liberals, in their almost pathological defense of the underdog, ANY underdog, have jumped to the cause of practically anybody who has a grievance with the way government is administered.

I am interested in the nexus between liberalism and entertainment, and I consider the "underdog" mentality a big part of that.
It is often claimed that the press is the critical guarantee of our freedom, and that is true in principle. But "the press" in the First Amendment includes books, for example, and is not limited to the mass entertainment known as journalism. Journalism, to have something to get our attention with, has a hypercritical attitude towards the institutions upon which we depend--in HOPES of ginning up an excuse to ask, "Is Your Drinking Water Safe?"
Journalism IMHO is not harmless; it is perhaps an acid test of our institutions--necessary but NOT without corrosive effect.