...if all participants think alike anyway?
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
I ask the question in the title because I hear some people on the Left complain that the Right sees massive conspiracies all around them. Of course, they ignore the conspiracies they see or have seen in the past. Like the "vast right-wing conspiracy" Hillary complained about at the beginning of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. I also understand that the majority, if not the vast majority, of the 9-11 Truthers are on the Left.
What the left often derides is the feeling by the Right that the mainstream media is against them. The Left often points out that the owners of that media are rich white men and are, therefore, more likely to be conservative than liberal. This ignores Ted Turner, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, and others. All rich, all white, and mostly old, males.
The question I pose has to do with the press. If the press is, as is suggested by polling, made up of mostly Democrat journalists (which implies that the editors are also mostly Democrat) then the atmosphere in the work environment is likely to be liberal. If all those you work with, or socialize with, are liberal the odds are that you will see liberalism as "mainstream", the norm of society. Not all Democrats are liberal, of course, just as not all Republicans are conservative. But people tend to fall in line with the thinking of those around them... the "herd instinct", if you will.
When I was young, liberalism was the counter-culture. Liberals were the ones who challenged authority and distrusted government; conservatives were the ones who trusted government and obeyed authority. That seems to have been turned upside down of late, a complete (almost) role reversal.
To get back to that question... let me phrase it another way: Do you need to conspire if all involved are on the same page anyway?
Footnote:
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a couple of cases (DOMA and California's Proposition 8) on same-sex marriage currently. Lots of noise in the media of all kinds regarding this. I wrote a post back in 2008 which addressed the issue of same-sex marriage. If you are interested in my ideas for addressing this issue, I recommend you read this... [link].
A Night Unremembered
13 years ago
1 comment:
i don't think there's any doubt that liberalism is no longer what it was not only during your time, but has long abandoned its original roots.
Liberalism seems to spend its time defending itself by looking at the other side and forming arguments from that point as opposed to merely arguing within itself to constantly evolve. They call this 'progressivism' now but i'm jumping off that wagon, man.
They're content to assume its ideas and premises that lead to various laws are 'correct.' No wonder it comes off stale to some of us.
It's nothing but statism at this point. It ceased to 'question' anything. Can anyone with a straight face still claim the New York Times isn't 'liberal' in the contemporary sense?
They hold as much a spiritual connection to original liberalism as I do to Hinduism. Liberalism is another word for socialist now. That is, use the state as a force for 'good' as much as you can.
Meh.
Post a Comment