 |
||
|
|
||
War of Words
When
Fox News presented their marketing ploy of being "fair and balanced,"
their new claim had nothing to do a shift from their obvious conservative
leanings to any sort of media fairness in politics. Indeed, it was another
expression of conservatism's ongoing strategy to use every devious means
possible to promote extreme right wing propaganda. For decades American
politics has been subjected to a war of words, that circumvents and undercuts
even the possibility of positive political debate.
The
result? A nation divided for no other reason than the greed for power;
a conservative movement cut off by factionalism from its philosophical
roots; a conspiratorial and deceitful defamation of liberalism; a major
threat to our tripartite system of government; a shift away from people
politics toward oligarchy; an identification of patriotism away from individual
freedoms and toward common nationalism; a turning away from the benefits
and growing certainty of knowledge and human reason toward deceptive plots
of group dynamics; and a frightening dissolution of the wall separating
church from state that was purposely erected by our founders to protect
both institutions.
When
a contest is promulgated between an imperfect yet reasonable individual
groping for truth, and a sinister madman willing to say or do anything
for his own aggrandizement, trying to be fair and balanced only helps
the madman, who does not deserve to be in the contest at all. Madness
can only partake in the contest by injecting more madness, by tearing
down conventions of reason, by changing the rules, the definitions, the
issues, the way people think of things, instigating emotional investment,
and therefore trust.
The
reasonable participant becomes drastically disadvantaged. He presents
intelligent arguments, but his efforts fall on deaf ears. He is already
disliked for being typecast as the enemy, and not buying into the propagated
madness. When he appeals to people's genuine self-interest, he finds their
commitment focused on safeguarding things that are not being threatened.
One
does not have to look far to see proof of conservative obfuscation, provocative
fear-mongering, purposeful twisting of logic, emotion driving jingoism,
and rhetorical tactics designed to prevent intelligent discussion.
Consider
their modus operandi:
- Elevating
wedge issues that are never solved to sidestep issues that really matter.
- Presenting
intellectual lightweights for office, while convincing their supporters
that those who are more intelligent, who see the nuances of issues,
are "elites" that should not be trusted.
- Using
insult, distrust and false information to hamstring necessary progress
(environmental protection and global warming come to mind).
- Stirring
regional paranoia to divide the nation.
- Negative
campaign ads that not only point out their adversaries failings or differences,
but incorporate lies and innuendo.
- Promising
to reduce government size, even while increasing it.
- Naming
their programs the opposite of what they are (for example, the Clear
Skies Initiative lowered environmental protection standards).
- Insisting that a Democrat who promises to reduce taxes on 90% of tax payers will raise taxes for everyone.
Consider
also the derogatory rhetoric they use against their opponents, words designed
to eliminate contrary voices from being heard:
- Bleeding
hearts
- Tax
and spend liberals.
- Tree
huggers.
- East
coast elites.
Pinkos, socialists, communists.
- Whiners. Traitors. Terrorists.
I
will not go into some of the offensive language used during the civil
rights era.
Which reminds me. Conservatives vehemently
opposed against many of the issues that are now generally accepted as
right and good. Such as civil and equal rights, energy independence, Social
Security, and environmental protection. Most recently they scoffed at
global warming and brought out numerous pseudo experts to deny it existed.
Their resistance slowed any sort of effective response for decades, leading
to far worsening of the situation. Their blind faith to deregulation and
market dynamics led to the recent economic failure that has dealt a devastating
blow worldwide.
Is this to be perceived as the American
way? Elevating wedge issues while avoiding real problems? Not learning
from past mistakes? Winning elections by generating false scandals against
liberal opponents? Redefining liberalism from the belief and promotion
of liberty for all into a nonsensical need to spend taxes? Initiating
unjust wars? Equating patriotism with supporting these same unjust wars?
Conservatives claim they don't believe in
big government. They feel that our government of the people is part of
the problem, not the solution, yet they want to be in control of it. How
good of an idea is that? Placing people who don't believe in government
ion charge of it? Does that make sense? Of course it doesn't. But it does
explain the incredible corruption and hypocrisy of government during the
Bush administration by his own party in congress.
Conservatives say the don't trust government
to do the right thing for a freedom loving people, but when things go
bad, like our latest economic crisis, where do they turn for answer? They
turn to a government bailout of the very marketplace dynamics that they
previously had blind faith in.
Could it be that their mantra about government
inefficiency results in a self-fulfilling prophecy? How can you promote
government efficiency when you don't believe it's possible? Seems self-limiting
to me.
Liberals
just don't have media advocates like Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, Sean
Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck and a host of others. Why? Because
they don't believe such oppressive, fascist propaganda techniques are
conducive to a nation of honest, free thinking people. They don't want
to divide the nation. They don't want to bully people, or engage in unjust
wars. In other words, they don't want advocates like those mentioned above
(even though some, like Keith Olbermann try to compete with them
at their own level). They believe that hate is more destructive than constructive,
and truth more preferable than lies. They are not always right, and have
the same human weaknesses that we all do, but the purposely contrived
maliciousness does not come natural to their cause. That's because their
cause is far closer to the ideals of our founders, which is the raising
of equality and human potential.
That
being said, the enthusiasm of liberalism needs a healthy dose of old fashioned
conservatism to keep it in line, to preserve what is worth preserving.
The
trouble is, the new version of conservatism we have now is trying to preserve
the wrong things. Pollution, international belligerence, preference of
the wealthy, them versus us political policies, religious interference
in government, patriotism based more on nationalism than true American
ideals, inequality, regional tension, prejudice against sexual preferences,
and social Darwinism.
