Skip to comments.Talking to Liberals: Part VI
Posted on 01/04/2013 11:36:39 PM PST by kreitzer
Obama and the progressive left, as a general rule, think the American people will believe what they're told to believe. We on the right talk about his political tin ear because he genuinely doesn't understand how we think. But in 21st century America, he doesn't have to. We are an irrelevant demographic to him.
But that's not the end of it. He doesn't really care what the people who support him think either, because he doesn't have to. The best evidence of this that I've seen since the election was his TV appearance just before the new year, when he announced that a 'fiscal cliff' deal was in the making. I wasn't paying close attention until I heard a rousing cheer go up from the crowd.
"Where is he speaking" I wondered to myself, "Georgetown Law School or something? Who are his supporters that are cheering like that? He just won an election... what can he possibly be campaigning for now?"
But he wasn't campaigning. The loud cheer came from his supporters... his supporters in the press.
What Obama has figured out is that you don't have to care what the people think if you understand what the press who speak to them think. That's who his real constituency is. For him, the information flow is all one way. He says things couched in precisely the kind of terms that the press like, and that corresponds to their self important biases. They then report it in as favorable terms as they can. That's what happened with the fiscal cliff deal. It was poor legislation, that barely addressed our fiscal issues. But you'll never hear that from the press because it punished the people they want to punish.
To say this complicates the job of conservatives in trying to speak to Snooki-Americans, is no understatement. Our ideas are not popular with the press because they generally reward things like merit, and results. The press would prefer we reward words and ideas since that's all they ever produce. To them rewarding actual achievement is declasse - it's an indicator of base motives linked to things like profit and greed.
Even more, the press doesn't argue like you and I argue. They genuinely believe that "the truth" is defined by how well you wield your semantic knife. As far as they're concerned, the person with the best 'sound bite' must be speaking the truth. That's the limit of their depth. And they always believe that its they who have the best sound bite, so they should be the ones to decide policy.
When it comes to the first amendment, they are absolutists. Even further, they believe that to be a journalist gives them special rights. They believe that it means they can break the law with impunity so long as it server a broader journalistic goal. David Gregory's firearms scoff law and Dan Rather's career ending forgery incident are just two of the best known examples. To them "journalist" is a special class of anointed elite, designated by the universe to be the grand arbiter of the truth.
They are absolutists about the second amendment as well. Since the second amendment directly empowers the citizen and speaks directly to the use of force, they see it as weakening the first amendment and the broader power of words, and indirectly ... them. That's why the consensus that the second amendment should be shattered is so strong among journalists.
But that's who the real opposition to American conservatism is. These shallow, vain, dim, thoughtless, insecure people. If Snooki-American are as mindless as a herd of cattle, these are the cowboys who herd them. It's certainly how they see themselves at any rate. I don't know if it's possible for the conservative movement to speak to them in terms that they'll represent fairly. Milton Friedman did it, but he took them by surprise, and they've since hardened their semantic arguments to his kind of rationality. But if the republic is to survive, I believe we need to figure out a way.
Okay, so any suggestions?
There is no “Talking to Liberals: Part I” in my world. They can either get with the program or get run over by reality AFAIC.
I’d rather try to explain the General Theory of Relativity to my cat than talk to a liberal.
Divide the country geographically on ideological lines, creating a “red” America, those who believe in such things as the rule of law, the US Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights amendments. Ignore state lines in drawing up this new “red” republic, and concentrate on counties and congressional districts. The remaining “blue” regions may be allowed to organize into separate republics. They shall be permitted to set up whatever set of cockamamie rules they want to be governed by, but only applying within their own geographic limits.
Allow a period of time for those who find themselves as “prisoners of conscience” within an area which is contrary to their personal beliefs, and resettle them in the more appropriate region in accordance with their interests and inclinations. Then set up a strongly controlled frontier everywhere between the “red” America, which would be paractically contiguous, and all the little scattered “blue” republics.
Liberals are very good at debating each other, and they can argue points as arcane as something like, “How many angels can dance on the point of a pin?”, or an equally fine theoretical concept, without annoying the real producers in societies, if they are kept properly confined away from more practical people. It is when they try to apply these theoretical conclusions on others, that almost all the trouble arises.
There is no useful dialogue that can be held with the more fanciful of these theorists, as they seem to believe the single thread of logic they follow is the one and only path to truth. But logic is not reality, nor is it required to correlate in any way to reality, a nuance they seem not to recognize.
I don't know if it's possible for the conservative movement to speak to them in terms that they'll represent fairly. Milton Friedman did it, but he took them by surprise, and they've since hardened their semantic arguments to his kind of rationality. But if the republic is to survive, I believe we need to figure out a way.
Indeed, if our Republic is to survive in any meaningful manner (and not just on paper), we need to find a way. Convincing an individual of the Leftist persuasion of the error of his ways is a frightfully tough nut to crack.
But we all know this already.
So, is it "possible for the conservative movement to speak to them in terms that they'll represent fairly"? Possible, yes. Likely? IMHO, no.
It's a no-brainer that many members of the Main Sycophant Media see themselves as part of The Ruling Class. Thus, when a conservative expresses any challenge to any Ruling Class member's words or actions, the MSM see that challenge as an affront to and an assault on their fellow travelers.
But, again, we all know this.
Still, we must find a way. For my part, I pray every day for guidance on this and other fronts. If we don't find a way, then our once-proud Representative Republic soon will be little more than a mockery of all that Washington, Madison, Jefferson, and their contemporaries made just a few short centuries ago.
Let's not pooch this. Western Civilization hangs in the balance.
UnAmerican people will believe what they’re told to believe.
It’s why he was elected.
A free ride goes a long way.
Wishful thinking. I’d lose half my family.
What is said to the Democrat voters is unimportant. What is important, is what the Democrat voters HEAR.