Replies

Mike's a bit schizophrenic here. He talks about adhering to principles and then about being inclusive, not exclusive. Apparently not recognizing that the RINOs and the left accuse those conservatives who stick by their principles as not being inclusive.

The thing to understand is that the people we’re calling RINOs now were the people Reagan had to, and did, count on. The difference is that with the passage of time, and the success of Reagan internationally, there is no unifying Communist threat - even as the country is split internally by Marxists in the government. The situation is more reminiscent of the 1930s and 40s than of the 1970s and 80s.
Reagan signed on to Jack Kemp’s tax cut, the Kemp-Roth bill, and it became derided as “Reaganomics" - until, as Reagan put it, "I really, though, found out our economic plan was working when they stopped calling it Reaganomics.”
But the signal difference now is the existence of the Internet and Talk Radio, and the concomitant blatantness of the “bias in the media” - a phrase which I put in scare quotes because it is IMHO a very weak formulation. Yes, fiction dramas take a leftist slant, but there is no sane criterion by which to say that a storyteller has to tell only stories with political implications I would approve of. The problem is more properly identified as a culture of credulousness which is cultivated by journalists and by our schools. Credulousness is scarcely a new problem; Adam Smith bemoaned it in 1759:
It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. - Adam Smith
But the problem is made more acute with the reach of the Associated Press and the other wire services, which produce an actual conspiracy against us:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Book I, Ch 10)
The wire services are virtual meetings of all major journalistic organizations, and - after over a century and a half - the inevitable conspiracy against the public which that produces is embedded in our culture. The claim of journalistic objectivity is sophistry, and it is embedded in our culture by our schools as well as by unified propaganda from all journalists (anyone who does not promote that sophistry is “not objective).
I of course make no claims against scrupulous and diligent efforts to be objective - no more than I would rail against attempts at attaining wisdom. But the claim to actually be objective is directly analogous to the claim to actually be wise - and as the etymologies of the words “philosopher” and “sophist” show,
sophist 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments. philosopher O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage." "Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein]
the term “sophistry” derives directly from people who used claims to actually be wise to fraudulently manipulate the public.
I claim that the claim to actually be objective is directly analogous to the claim to actually be wise on the basis that I am unable to define any distinction between the meaning of the word “objective” as the journalist uses it to suppress dissent and the meaning of the word “wise.”