Posted on 08/22/2005 7:28:30 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
I'd like to expand on that and put it into some context; the role our Constitution plays for example. It should be the end of the line for the rebellious teens(modern day liberals/leftists) in our midst; hence their efforts to change the document. The rules are unfair(waving arms); a woman's right to choose(stomping feet); rights for queers(throwing dust in the air).
Somewhere in the Bible, it warns us that at some point we may/will be ruled by children. I don't recall the context, but I think I'll do some looking around to see what I can see.
FGS
P.S.: I liked your tagline at first blush, but actually the MSM is the Enigima machine of "liberalism." And FR is our response to it - our "Ultra" project.The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.That's my tagline because I think it carries a large import for American politics. The Democratic Party has become unambiguously a "liberal" party. A young, intellectually honest Zell Miller today wouldn't give the Democratic Party a second glance. "Liberalism" always belongs in quotes (I confess to being too lazy to always follow through on that resolution, but . . .), because in common usage it is only a euphemism, and you don't take the dictionary definition of a word seriously when in fact the word is actually camouflage for an unspoken meaning.The import of my tagline is that perfect liberalism is the tactical quest for good PR, unfettered by any other principle. It is that which defines Bill Clinton as the quintessential "liberal" - all he has ever cared about was getting good PR today, consequences take the hindmost. Even the "sacred" principle of big government is not immediately as important to him as being seen as being a "moderate."
And why is there in "liberalism" a "sacred principle" of big government? Because the real fundamental of PR - of commercial mass-market journalism - is cheap talk. Cheap talk means big promises and no results; the cheapest talk of all is the second guess. And since everyone who does things makes mistakes, the people who do the most make the most mistakes. So a second guess only sounds significant if it is addressing some actual attempt at accomplishing something.
In any prosperous society individuals taking risks in the face of uncertainty are the ones who produce development. After the risk has panned out, the resulting factory or other institution suddenly seems inevitable, and is taken for granted. And the people who own it and run it are second-guessed for not doing it even better. The idea that the government "coulda woulda shoulda" is a second guess applied to the conservative politician who made no pretense of trying to do better what the conservative understands that the government cannot even approach doing as well as the private, risk-taking entrepreneur.
Since the "liberal" is second-guessing, a "liberal" in power is timid - ultimately, being in power tends to bring accountability, the one thing the second-guesser fears. Thus, the Clinton non-administration, more interested in covering up than doing anything important. A defeat in Mogadishu? Cut and run quick - if they beat us once they might beat us again, and worse, if we raise the ante. Does an airliner crash under suspicious circumstances? Boast that you will find out the cause, and bring any perpetrators to justice - then change the subject. Does a building in Oklahoma City blow up? Never mind the possible foreign policy implications, blame your critics.
The point I started out working toward is this: journalists are no different than other "liberals." The individual journalist fears the collective of big journalism, and is timid just like the "liberal" politician is timid. Liberals think that criticism is action. The "liberal" politician is not a leader but an irresponsible critic just like the other "liberals" who are journalists. Was John "I voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry a leader? Was Bill "triangulation" Clinton a leader?
"Triangulation" was not, IMHO, a mere matter of staking out different ground than the congressional delegations of the Republicans and the Democrats. "Triangulation" was staking out a position of presumed superiority above the Republicans and the Democrats. IOW, arrogance. A position from which to criticize. Exactly the same "ground" which "objective journalists" presume to occupy.
"Liberal" politicians and "objective" journalists are joined at the hip. Is the Pope Catholic? Yes, Catholicism defines itself by adherence to the teaching of the Pope - if the Pope isn't Catholic, there is no such thing as Catholicism. Is an "objective" journalist a "liberal?" Yes - and for much the same reason. "Liberals" define themselves by what will sell to journalists, and will make "great copy."
Liberals are of course far more circumspect about that definition than Catholics are about their own. But then, devotees of PR would be circumspect in their choice of words. Quite systematically so. And that brings me back to the topic of the quotations around the word "liberal" upon which I earlier insisted. Whenever a "liberal" - a devotee of PR - is selling something the public doesn't want to buy, that "liberal" will freely resort to euphemisms to obscure his/her meaning.
For example, "liberals" are well known for advocating high taxes and extensive regulation and intrusive government. They could therefore be well described as, to coin a word, "governmentists." But since that is too obviously a synonym for "tyranny," and since "tyranny" is about the worst brand of government which you could try to sell Americans, "liberals" do not use that word. Initially, they resorted to the euphemism which is endemic in "liberal" discussions of policy. In preference to the plain-language word "government" "liberals" always prefer to use a euphemism. "Liberals" have more than one euphemism for "government." One evergreen is "public;" the government school is for example called the "public" school, and similar usages were promoted by John Kenneth Galbraith in the middle of the Twentieth Century. Thus when a "liberal" speaks of "the public sector" he rarely means anything other than "the government." But Galbraith and his acolytes thought if made an effective contrast to "the private sector" as a euphemism (actually, a malphemism to deceptively make something good sound bad) for what the framers of the Constitution simply called "the people."
The other typical "liberal" euphemism for "government," however, is "society." Indeed I tested this theory out by asking my "liberal" uncle to explain the difference between the two words "society" and "government." The result completely satisfied me - he questioned whether there was any difference at all in the meanings of the two words! And of course, in his ideology he was right - perfectly politically correct. In the absence of freedom there would in fact be no difference between "society" and "government." Isn't it amazing to see the things that people who actually think that they believe in freedom can advocate!?
It was natural, then, for "governmentists" to create a euphemism for their movement out of the root word "social." "Socialism" is simply a coined euphemism for "government-ism" - for tyranny. And worldwide, the euphemism "socialism" was a smashing success as a brand. Highly popular in Europe, dominant in Asia. But in America it was a failure. In America, freedom had produced for the ordinary person a standard of living beyond the dreams of avarice of most people in Europe, say nothing of Asia. America was actually a country governed by elected representatives of "we the people." American government was governed by American society.
Americans had every reason to believe in freedom, and to smell a rat when someone tried to sell tyranny under the rubric of empowering "society." So what was a good devotee of PR to do? The answer was obvious. Americans believed in liberty; tell them that what you are selling is liberty! Say that you are a "liberal" and you've cracked the PR problem! The adoption of the euphemism "liberalsim" for the euphemism "socialism" for the reality "government ism" was an accomplished fact in America long ago. Far enough back that FDR employed that usage in that way entirely unselfconsciously. And yet "liberalism" still means (as F A Hayek put it) "pretty much the opposite" in places outside the US as it does within it.
Ping to my #42 . . .
But I do have a thought or two about the meaning of words and the timidity of the left.
For the first 30 years of the 20th century,what we today call liberals, called themselves progressives. "To progress" was considered a very good thing so instead of leftists calling themselves, socialists or govern mentalists, they called themselves progressives. There was even a progressive political party.
But by the early 1930s labeling themselves progressives was no longer considered a good thing to do. Progressives had revealed what they were. So the term progressive no longer described a party wanting to progress. It was a party that wanted government to take charge of all aspects of life with them in charge of government.
When progressive becoming a dirty word, they changed their identifying name to Liberal. Liberals after all were people who favored liberty.. and who could oppose that. Now some 75 years later liberals are no longer is seen as those favoring liberty. They are seen as those who will take control of ever aspect of life and run our lives as they see fit.
So now liberal is a bad word. Only 17 percent of the public will consent to being called a liberal. Yet nearly half of our voters vote as if they were liberal.
So in the few years the left has started to rename themselves as progressives. In the last 75 years the word progressive had returned to its original meaning. With the INTERNET and talk radio, I don't think it will take 75 years for Progressive to assume the same meaning liberal has assumed today.
To me the most telling thing about the left is they know they must disguise their true intentions to gain power. Today's meaning of liberal will not sell with voters. So they change the name. They know what they espouse is not acceptable to the majority of voters. So they must disguise their real plans.
The most important thing in political debate with liberals is not to refute their accusations. The most important thing is to get them to reveal to the voters what they would really like to do if they had the power.
I do have some concern about the belief that liberals are timid. Bill and Hillary Clinton came into office expecting and predicting they would move the nation more to the left than had FDR. They both believed they could nationalize medicine. They became timid when the American people rejected their socialist plans.
Were Hillary or Bill ever to get the presidency with the kind of congressional leads enjoyed by FDR, they would be less timid than Mike Tyson at an ear biting contest.
The reason is that they do not recognize any sector that has a right to be private, if a majority of the legislature decide to stick their fingers in and start running things. Likewise, with that mindset, "limited government" under a written Constitution has no meaning to the socialists.
Today's socialists, liberals, progressives, left-Democrats, whatever, parted company from us in 1776. They neither know nor understand the genius of the success of America since then. They also neither know nor understand the nature of free market economics, which began the same year with the publication of Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith.
Congressman Billybob
I think we have to look at what "liberals" are timid about. They are self-important to the max, but they are timid about risking exposure outside the PR consensus. They are real lions as long as they think that institutional journalism is behind them, but what institutional journalism doesn't support "liberals" dare not do. And journalists are simply celebrities within the celebrity culture of "liberalism."That is why Clinton was so bashful about responding militarily to challenge in Mogadishu; in military affairs journalism would have been with Clinton "win or draw." And really, only "win." And a military expedition has bottom-line characteristics - objectives to meet or not meet, and casualty lists.
Thanks for responding to my rant - it was a rant and I knew it as it unfolded. But it seemed that the words were flowing, and I hoped for significant insight to come from it. Or at least a reasonably compact portrayal of ideas I've had for a long time. And it that I thought it was at least somewhat of a success.
One motive in my thinking is that I agree with Peggy Noonan that Hillary Clinton is a bully. And that I think that the two main characteristics of a bully are arrogance and cowardice. And I think I see both of those things in the one slogan, "you never want to argue with someone who buys ink by the carload." That's arrogant of the journalist vis a vie the general public; vis a vie other journalists that same slogan implies timidity.
Quite. I like to think of market economics as a system which maximizes effective communication - much like the Internet. It's been said that nobody knows how to make a pencil - the people who know how to produce the graphite don't know how to grow timber or reduce it to lumber or how to mine the metal for the eraser ferrule or how to make the rubber for the eraser. But market economics draws that information together in an effective and efficient way. Socialism is the arrogant conceit that a planner can do better than the market, and because of inherent chaos in the system - weather conditions, changes in technology . . . the problem which the "smart" central planner tries to solve mutates faster than the planner can react - never mind plan.Which is just another way of saying that the "smart" central planner may know a lot and still might instantly lose his shirt if he durst bet his own money in a real market. In the market system diffuse intelligence changes prices, and those prices change people's plans - which then change prices anew. Socialists simply assume their own superiority over the diffuse intelligence of the market - and demand that you prove them wrong. But the conservative knows that if he could explain that he would be a competent central planner - and he knows that he is no such thing.
since the Swift boaters were honest men speaking the truth I think that's fine that they "swift boat" this nut-job. They can try to sully the reputation of the heroes from Vietnam who were the swift boat veterans that stepped forward to speak the truth and reveal how Kerry was lying about his record and his secret missions on Christmas eve and all that, but Americans know better than to mindlessly accept their efforts at slander and dismissal of the problems with Sheehan. What do they think we are, Liberal? The majority of Americans are not that dumb.Yes. The left is using "Swiftboating" as the new "McCarthyism."13 posted on 08/27/2005 5:02:17 AM EDT by highlander_UW
When you get in these guys faces with the truth, they unite to poison the messenger and salt the earth around him.
RJayneJ memorial dittoes. Sigh . . .Sheehan's ad says Bush lied about Iraq war ("labeled a 'crackpot' by Fred Barnes,")
Baltimore Sun | August 27, 2005 | Nick Madigan
....But isn't that true? Aren't the broadcast journalists objective? Aren't they moderate? The burden of proof of that question properly lies with them.
They tell us they aren't biased but it's such bs.
***..........................If others could understand your truth, you would not think of yourself as a "vanguard." You would no longer inhabit the morally charmed world of an elite, whose members alone can see the light and whose mission is to lead the unenlightened towards it. If everybody could see the promised horizon and knew the path to reach it, the future would already have happened and there would be no need for the vanguard of the saints.
That is both the ethical core and psychological heart of what it means to be a part of the left. That is where the gratification comes from. To see yourself as a social redeemer. To feel anointed. In other words: To be progressive is itself the most satisfying narcissism.
That is why it is of little concern to them that their socialist schemes have run aground, burying millions of human beings in their wake. That is why they don't care that their panaceas have caused more human suffering than all the injustices they have ever challenged. That is why they never learn from their "mistakes." That is why the continuance of Them is more important than any truth.
........For these self-appointed social redeemers, the goal-"social justice"-is not about rectifying particular injustices, which would be practical and modest, and therefore conservative. Their crusade is about rectifying injustice in the very order of things. "Social Justice" for them is about a world reborn, a world in which prejudice and violence are absent, in which everyone is equal and equally advantaged and without fundamentally conflicting desires. It is a world that could only come into being through a re-structuring of human nature and of society itself.
Even though they are too prudent and self-protective to name this future anymore, the post-Communist left still passionately believes it possible. But it is a world that has never existed and never will. Moreover, as the gulags and graveyards of the last century attest, to attempt the impossible is to invite the catastrophic in the world we know.
But the fall of Communism taught the progressives who were its supporters very little. Above all, it failed to teach them the connection between their utopian ideals and the destructive consequences that flowed from them. The fall of Communism has had a cautionary impact only on the overt agendas of the political left. The arrogance that drives them has hardly diminished. The left is like a millenarian sect that erroneously predicted the end of the world, and now must regroup to revitalize its faith.
No matter how opportunistically the left's agendas have been modified, however, no matter how circumspectly its goals have been set, no matter how generous its concessions to political reality, the faithful have not given up their self-justifying belief that they can bring about a social redemption. In other words, a world in which human consciousness is changed, human relations refashioned, social institutions transformed, and in which "social justice" prevails.
Because the transformation progressives seek is ultimately total, the power they seek must be total as well. In the end, the redemption they envision cannot be achieved as a political compromise, even though compromises may be struck along the way. Their brave new world can ultimately be secured only by the complete surrender of the resisting force. In short, the transformation of the world requires the permanent entrenchment of the saints in power. Therefore, everything is justified that serves to achieve the continuance of Them. ...........................*** Source
Such is the power and duration of the propaganda campaign which supports the fatuous idea that we are "entitled to the truth" that it took me well over 50 years to see through it. We are only entitled to our own opinions--and to spend our own money to try to propagate our opinion, and to ignore whoever bids for our attention unsuccessfully.I composed a vanity on the topic of journalism and First Amendment freedom, and from time to time I post comments (often linked to later threads) to it. The interested reader is invited to survey and comment on the results, on this thread
This current thread is a continuation of that process. Its fundamental point is what might be called "the tendentiousness of objectivity." That is a seeming oxymoron, but the true oxymoron is the claim of objectivity itself. For the minute you claim - and argue from - your own objectivity, you use power instead of reason to attempt to make your case. If you don't have power - if you are not speaking to your own child for instance - you will convince no one of whatever point you are trying to make, and you will convince your auditor that you are anything but objective. That is, from my POV, inescapable logic, of the sort that it has been my endeavor for many years to construct.
Anything less than that is dismissed by the pseudo-objective journalist as McCarthyism or a SBVT "hit piece." Not even this statistical " A Measure of Media Bias" avails when the pseudo-objective journalist maintains an Establishment which is able, in your words, to " use 'Swiftboating' as the new 'McCarthyism'" and, "When you get in these guys' faces with the truth, . . . unite to poison the messenger and salt the earth around him."
Media bias bump.
I'm certain that I read that piece before; I knew immediately that it was Horowitz. But for sure it merits a reread once in a while!
if we ignore her, won't she go away?
When you get in these guys faces with the truth, they unite to poison the messenger and salt the earth around him.
What you are in fact describing is nothing other than the Big Lie technique. Interesting how the various arms of Establishment Journalism can signal each other when that technique is to be employed - and all "unite to . . . [not only kill but] salt the earth around [the messenger]."
When you get in these guys faces with the truth, they unite to poison the messenger and salt the earth around him.
What you are in fact describing is nothing other than the Big Lie technique. Interesting how the various arms of Establishment Journalism can signal each other when that technique is to be employed - and all "unite to . . . [not only kill but] salt the earth around [the messenger]."
And the reason they should lose their privileges is that those privileges - denied to you and me but given to the government's pets for free - is that the FCC license proclaim that the FCC licensee is "more equal" than you and me. An FCC license makes the licensee's voice in politics louder than yours and mine, and proclaims that what the licensee says and does not say, and what the licensee shows and does not show, is "in the public interest."I just have to point out, that, since the *"Fairness Doctrine" was done away with the conservative prescence has only grown, while strictly-branded liberal talk continues to wane.
Wile Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity and host of others occupy about 20-23 minutes per half hour the MSM mediots only blather on at the top of the hour for 3 mins or so (and sometimes for a couple of mins at the bottom).
I call that progress; we are winning, winning on the war of ideas and the total numbers of minutes of airtime a day ...
* Fairness Doctrine:The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.
I call that progress; we are winning, winning on the war of ideas and the total numbers of minutes of airtime a day ...
In AM radio, yes. Broadcast TV is a different story.
I 'tune in' to see what the (mostly) empty headed opposition is up to, and for the comments by George Will and Brit Hume; the rest are a waste ...
By any chance have you read the book, Paul Revere's Ride?
The book describes the battle of Lexington and Concord in which, since the British Government was the establishment, the redcoats could not have faced regular army opposition - their opposition was all militias. Interesting facts include:
The problem is that the antiwar Left has conflated these issues . . .
. . . with the exception of a few of their extremists, they (including all of their legitimate presidential hopefuls) know we can't legitimately talk about withdrawing, which is why they are not offering — not even pretending to offer — any alternative plans.
In a level playing field debate, the left has not the slightest possibility of defeating a conservative; the left has to hide its agenda - and always has. The left uses euphemisms for things it cannot say out loud - essentially it uses the words "public" or "social" when it actually means nothing else but "government." Thus "socialism" is really just a euphemism for "governmentism" - which, all too clearly, is a synonym for tyranny.But a conventional TV "debate" is not a level playing field at all. They are really competitive joint news conferences. And although both maintain the fiction that the distinction is meaningful, there has really been no political difference between a Democratic politican and a journalist for the past three decades. In the 1968 transformation of the Democratic Party into its present cheap talk, antivalor configuration, Democratic poiticians divested themselves of any principle other than the idea that nothing matters except PR.
So the moderated TV "debate" is not the solution to the problem of enabling the public to select good presidents. There is no reason at all that the candidates could not debate equally publicly but on a far more level playing field. If all you cared about was enabling the public to understand what the issues are, you would give the candidates 3-hour blocks of radio time, and a chess timer to control whose microphone was live. The two candidates would not be required to be in a common location, so that there would be minimum impact on their schedules - and there would be five such debates.
With that much exposure I would expect that the voters would know who was on offer, and would make a more prudent choice than is currently to be counted on.
Iraq: let's quit confusing
Jewish World Review ^ | August 30, 2005 | David Limbaugh
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.