Victor Davis Hanson: Who and What Threaten the Constitution?

RCP/AmGreatness ^ | Victor Davis Hanson

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Media darlings, not media ogres, receive a veritable free pass to ignore constitutional norms. Champions of bipartisan consensus, “the people,” and the power of big government to do the “right” thing and advance social justice are the more dangerous to watch, not those championing the rights of the individual, and small and less intrusive government. Hillary Clinton, with a $1 billion war chest, a court media, and an array of highly paid pros, not the fly-by-night, improvised Trump campaign, was the expression of big media, big politics, big government, and big money eager to have one of their compliant own in the White House.

This is so spot-on, it’s as tasty as an ice cream sundae.

This. The implication of the existence of “media darlings” and "media ogres” existing as separate categories is that "the media” is homogeneous. “The media” is, not “the media" are. Why use the plural of “medium” - media? The answer, I submit, is that we are presented with one propaganda network, or Borg if you will, which appears to the public in many front organizations. Thus, ABC News, thus, The NY Times, etc, etc - but only one perspective as to who/what is a “darling” and who/what is an “ogre.” How does that happen?

I put it to you that Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776) provides an insight of great explanatory power:

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.

When we say “the media” we actually are talking primarily about journalists. Same trade? Check. Do journalists meet together much? Obviously they read each other’s stuff - but more pointedly, they all belong to the Associated Press. And the AP “wire” is nothing other than a virtual meeting of that whole crowd. A “meeting” which started before the Civil War and is still in continuous operation over a century and a half later. A meeting which has nothing to do with "merriment and diversion,” and everything to do with the conduct of business. The AP even has a “Stylebook” which defines how news articles are to be structured (unexceptionable) and words and expressions to be used or avoided which function to excise the expression of certain thoughts. Newspeak.

The 1964 NY Times v. Sullivan SCOTUS decision makes it hard for “public figures” to sue for libel, on exaggerated First Amendment grounds, and on the implicit assumption that journalism is not systematically biased towards or against any American political perspective. The First Amendment grounds are exaggerated, in the sense that (per Justice Scalia) “the freedom . . . of the press” refers not to absolute freedom (i.e., without a libel restriction) but to freedom of the press as known to Americans in the founding era. Freedom, that is, within the bounds of libel. As to the assumption that the press would tend to libel liberals just as much as conservatives, well . . .

The case is directly analogous to the example of laws against sleeping under bridges. The law applies to rich as well as to poor - but rich people don’t sleep under bridges. Just so, NY Times v. Sullivan limits the ability of Democrats and Republicans to sue for libel - but Democrats never need to sue for libel.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

“Trump says what he wants and then does what he can. It’s why he’s a great president. And I say that as a former detractor. Strong detractor, I might add. Strong enough to get temp-banned here twice over it.”

Glad to have you as a FRiend then.

There are two kinds of people in this world — hot and cold. You and I run ‘hot’ — we care deeply. Our emotions are furnaces that help keep others warm. And yes, it gets us in trouble sometimes.

Then there are the cold people who ‘play it safe’ all the time. They wait for others to dip their toes. They laugh at people like Trump and feel superior.

But Trump and you and I — all three of us learn how to channel our strong feelings and take fewer risks. Like a skilled daredevil. Over time, that’s the best way to be — if you survive it.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

‘What Gnashed Teeth and the other NeverTrumpers kept saying, in effect, was that if Hillary doesn’t win, then the Constitution is in danger...implying, of course, that Trump was going to destroy the Constitution.’

I think that some of the most outspoken purists feared what judges Trump would nominate. That is almost always the greatest risk.

Now they are calming down. Glenn Beck and Pat both frankly admitted they were wrong about Trump.

Kavanaugh was not conservative enough for me. And look at the hell that rained down on him for not being leftist enough!

THAT is the danger to our Constitution.