Lord love her, she’s trying. I’ll give her that much.
Recently, the White House has kept Fox News off of conference calls dealing with the Benghazi attack, despite Fox News being the only outlet that was regularly reporting on it and despite Fox having top notch foreign policy reporters.
They have left Chris Wallace’s “Fox News Sunday” out of a round of interviews that included CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS for not being part of a “legitimate” news network. In October 2009, as part of an Obama administration onslaught against Fox News,White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week” that the Fox News Channel is “not really a news station” and that much of the programming is “not really news.”￼
Whether you are liberal or conservative, libertarian, moderate or politically agnostic, everyone should be concerned when leaders of our government believe they can intentionally try to delegitimize a news organization they don’t like.
In fact, if you are a liberal – as I am – you should be the most offended, as liberalism is founded on the idea of cherishing dissent and an inviolable right to freedom of expression.
Umm…sadly, no. Nothing of the sort. What we today call “liberalism”–one of the more grotesque abuses of the language imaginable, that term as currently used is, and whoever dreamed of misappropriating it and applying it to the swine generally referred to these days ought to be criminally liable for it–is founded on Progressivism, which was founded on nothing anywhere near so laudable as “cherishing dissent” or “freedom of expression,” but on absolute control of the populace by an elite cadre of “experts.”
The original Progressive movement (the current version having evolved with minor deletions of some of its now politically radioactive original tenets, such as mandatory sterilization of “undesirables” and the genetically “inferior”–which is one of the reasons I generally refer to the present-day version as Progressivism) was the inspiration for 20th century European fascism, which in turn inspired the Progressives of the day to wax rhapsodic over Mussolini’s and Hitler’s earthly Progressive paradises. Disavow it though they might, them’s the facts. And fascists aren’t known for “cherishing” freedom of expression, or much of any other kind of freedom. One need only observe the typical “liberal” response to real dissent to know that not much has changed.
Progressivists believe that ordinary people are incompetent to make decisions for themselves, are incapable of acting in their own best interests, and are too intellectually inferior to even recognize what those interests are. They must therefore be not only led like sheep but molded into a species of “New Progressivist Man” by those experts; only said experts have the enlightenment and education to be able to envision a more perfect future not just for themselves but for all mankind, and therefore are deserving of the kind of dictatorial power required to reshape society into a shining Utopia for all.
Or, y’know, most. Or, y’know, some.
Well, okay, a few. Whether they intend that initially or not, that’s how it always, always, ALWAYS works out: a nice deal for those atop the slag heap; for those on the bottom…well, there’ll be pie in the sky, by and by. Yes, it will work out that way this time too–no matter how ingenious Obama (or whatever other shiny Savior comes along next time, or next) is, no matter how benign and loving his intentions are, no matter how compassionate and empathetic he is, what we’ll end up with is a cesspool of corruption, a central bureaucracy with limitless power and zero accountability, and a ridiculously privileged few grabbing for all the boodle they can get, driving the rest of us like rented mules–for our own good, of course.
To the Progressivist, individual rights must always be subject to the will of the collective; there are NO “unalienable” rights, since all rights, and all other forms of beneficence, issue first from government. You have what the government allows you to have; you achieve what the government allows you to achieve; you do what the government allows you to do. Which amounts to a sort of dunce’s conception of the uneasy marriage between a realpolitik recognition of the raw power of unbridled government, and an embrace of its brutality and ugliness by a supposedly more enlightened and freedom-loving breed of person–all to help the rest of us achieve that same enlightenment in some beautiful future which is always out of our reach, but within our grasp if we just give up another of our liberties.
Hey, this time for sure.
They see all this as ultimately right and just, since the “government” to them, paradoxically and oxymoronically, IS “the People.” It is the expression of the popular will, and the inability to recognize our own best interests renders all manipulation of the system itself, dishonest propaganda in support of it, and a demand for absolute loyalty and fealty to it not only necessary but proper and desirable. “Freedom of expression” (any and all “rights,” in fact) is not only dependent on government, but a gift from it, revokable or modifiable in troubled times as and when the Established Experts see fit. Repression, the reduction of the citizenry to subject status, is necessary when it is required to continue our advance towards human perfectibility.
Which of course is pretty much always, since our greed, ignorance, and generally benighted state renders us unfit to be trusted to come to the proper Progressivist conclusions in our decision-making. And thus is the circle of Progressivist sophistry completed.
Progressivism is not about compassion; it is not about helping anybody, except insofar as “helping” is defined by a narrow caste of elites, who get to decide for the rest of us how things are properly done, and what help is. It is about control–no more, no less.
All of which renders this statement contradictory and nonsensical:
Can someone explain to me how it’s “liberal” to try and shut down a media organization?
I just did. But once more, for the record: there couldn’t possibly be anything more “liberal” than that. But that’s because, to purloin a phrase: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.