Can Liberals Be Saved? (Suggestions welcome)
Frankly, it has become virtually impossible to have a decent conversation with those supporting the morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest ideology of the left. There will be those reading this column who will suggest that by characterizing the left’s ideology as morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest conservatives are contributing to the problem rather than being a part of the solution. This simply illustrates the shared belief of both liberals and conservatives that liberals are irresponsible and conservatives are always responsible for the state of the world.
There are a number of problems which truth seekers face when attempting to re-educate the liberal masses, not the least of which is combating the lies propagated by the main stream media. As noted here, the notion that individual media outlets are without bias is really a relatively recent phenomenon and, I might add, an important piece of the left wing’s propaganda effort. The difference between how the consumer relates to a story reported in a ostensibly unbiased media outlet, and how that same consumer relates to the very same story when reported in one which acknowledges its ideology should be obvious. Those on the left have done a masterful job in convincing those who look to them as unbiased purveyors of the news that the unfounded assumptions and massaged facts which appear on a daily basis are not only undeniably true, but also reflect a world view that is shared by millions of their fellow citizens.
The acceptance by the consumer of the left wing media’s self-serving claim to being unbiased has a number of important ramifications. The most obvious, or it would seem, is that the consumer must accept as true all the underlying assumptions being fed to him by the various media outlets and, in so doing, must also accept how the events of the day fit into the left wing’s narrative. This focus on being a “part of the team” has the effect of making consumers of the same left wing tripe we are all subjected to on a daily basis extremely close minded and virtually immune from any suggestion that they might wish to revisit their world view.
This is the reason, for example, that they will quote and accept as fact various unfounded assumptions from left wing outlets while dismissing alternative views while claiming they don’t like the source. They only accept information that comes from left-wing sources. Even in the face of over-whelming evidence to the contrary they will continue to accept the left wing version of the facts as, by definition, being true.
The constant sniping about Fox News ia a perfect example of how the left wing attempts to retain its hold on the flow of information. By constantly denigrating the quality of the news from Fox those on the left hope to kill the message by killing the messenger. As this study shows, when objective criteria is used to determine actual bias, it is an absolute fact that Fox News is the most “fair and balanced” of any of the major news outlets.
Obviously this is a fact that must be obscured and dismissed by every left wing activist. This is because the propaganda of the left depends on the consumer believing that the views of the left are “unbiased” and thus any inkling that this is not the case could be devastating to their cause. The left’s entire effort is based on convincing the populace that the majority is in the minority and that to be acceptable members of society they must change their ways to reflect the memes of the new order. Any facts which disprove the moral superiority of the left’s ideology, or the inevitability of its implementation, must be buried under an avalanche of false moral indignation and charges of bias or bigotry.
The astute observer may have noticed how the left often attempts to compare Fox to MSNBC. The shrillness and blatant bias seen on MSNBC is no accident, as it serves the purposes of the left at a relatively low cost. MSNBC’s line up and off the wall comments should be seen as a tactic which allows the less incendiary spokesmen for the left to claim middle of the road status. It is true that there are those true believers who watch and readily consume the red meat thrown out to them on a daily basis, but they are nothing but disposable pawns in the larger game aimed at securing the support of middle America.
The key to any hope of continued success for the left lies in its ability to present its ideology as reasonable and “American” on a media which it must continue to dominate. The true aim of radicalizing the fare and providing a forum to such buffoons as Ed Scharwtz and Al Sharpton on MSNBC is to allow those on the left to claim that it counter-balances similar programming on Fox. In revising the limits of acceptable political discourse towards the left at every available opportunity they hope to obscure the fact that Fox presents the most “fair and balanced” coverage. The aging consumers of old media seem oblivious to this shift and to ensure that they remain docile they are constantly being reassured that in accepting what is essentially left wing propaganda they are proving themselves to be both moderate and reasonable.
The problem is that they have forgotten how to determine where they lie on the ideological scale by using an objective system of measure. They look to “the Right” and see Fox News and they look to “the Left” and see MSNBC and thus reach the obvious conclusion that the position they hold is “in the middle”. New stories and new perspectives are presented them in rapid fashion and on a daily basis until all they can do is nod their heads in agreement without taking the time to assess what it is they are really being expected to accept. They are told that everything they hear is absolutely acceptable to their former ideology and thus we see them agreeing with policies based solely on those who they trust in the media telling them that they should. They continue to vote for “liberalism” without understanding that the word has no connection with the liberalism of their younger days. For the older generation the question they should be asking themselves in connection to their claim of being moderate and reasonable, ie. taking the middle ground, is, “In the middle of what“?
The younger generation of course has completely different problem. They have been subject to the indoctrination of the left for their entire lives. These are the people that claim that “socialism isn’t all that bad”. As with the older generation, they read and listen to left wing propaganda outlets which warn them against even considering that there might be another side to the story. It is not a matter of the propaganda being confined to certain sections of society, it pervades society in every way and at every turn to the point where they simply cannot avoid it.
Whether they go to school, watch tv, play video games, or go to the movies the world they see is always tinged with the left wing color of red, in effect looking at the world through a pair of “rose colored glasses“. On a whim I looked up the origin of the term and, sure enough, the author most often credited with originating the phrase was an English socialist from the late nineteenth century. Perhaps more relevant to this particular article is the fact that Thomas Hughes, the author, founded Rugby, Tennessee where he attempted to convert his socialistic ideology into practical action.
The quote from Wikipedia related to this experiment is telling: although this later proved largely unsuccessful. Strangely enough, that always seems to be the final outcome. “Something”, which inexplicably has nothing to do with the ideology itself, always seems to convert the best of intentions into a catastrophic failure. The obituary always references the intent of the person or persons involved in big bold letters while consigning the actual results to a side note as if to say: “although this later proved largely unsuccessful”, one shouldn’t lose heart or blame the ideology (socialism) which has failed every time it has been tried.
Can Liberal’s be saved? Not easily, and maybe not in time.
AaronInvestigates 