Liberal Media Predictably Biased Over Palin Resignation
Theoretically, conservatives should be able to take a lot of heat from the media. After all, the liberal media represents the minority,
not the majority, in America. Despite their constant presence in our
lives, the beliefs of those in the media are in stark contrast to most
Americans' beliefs. That's something conservative-minded Americans can
take comfort in.
Second, traditional Americans are a confident
bunch. Generally speaking, they lay down at night knowing the truth is
in their court. Liberals toss and turn with anger, resentment, or just
a steadfast conviction that they're victims of an unjust society.
Third,
the more personal the attack from the Left is, the more satisfying this
should be for the conservative. When Maureen Dowd trashes Palin's
character, instead of questioning specific topics she might take issue
with, the more foolish the Left appears. Take a stroll through the Huffington Post and you'll find scores of articles trashing Palin.
Sarah
Palin should take comfort in all the trash that's come her way: Her
mere presence shakes the Left to its core. As an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal
says, "Mrs. Palin seems, in particular, to drive feminist writers into
condescending fits." Indeed, the more of a fit people have, the more
you know you're on to something. People only spew vitriol when they're
up against a wall.
So why, then, isn't the superiority
of conservative thought enough to withstand the pressure from the
media? (And I'm not suggesting Palin stepped down for this reason
alone, but she has complained about this many times.)
Two
reasons. First, power is power -- no matter whose hands it's in. If the
powerful in America do not agree with your politics or worldview,
you're basically screwed. Because no matter how carefully you plan your
speech, no matter how prepared you are for the attacks, the powerful
will twist and turn anything you say to their advantage. We know the
media is liberal. But do we appreciate what this really means? I don't
think so. If you haven't been on the receiving end, it's difficult to
appreciate just how insidious it is. I suspect Palin had no idea how
evil the regime is. Consider this diatribe from Mark McNamara.
Second,
there aren't enough powerful conservative voices out there who are
willing and prepared to take on the media -- which makes it a tough
road for the lone conservative. Everyone needs support to do their
thing. That's why the liberal media have been so successful: They have
thousands of cohorts! It's also why talk radio is so vital. Talk radio
is a critical component of our democracy. Without it, conservative
America would retreat to their own little world, try to function
accordingly -- and feel hopelessly alone in a world gone mad.
The
irony of the whole thing is this: Because the powerful in America
happen to be liberal, it makes it seem as though America is liberal.
Yet nothing could be further from the truth. Liberals have the upper
hand, yes. And they have the microphone, which is terribly unfortunate.
But they're also like high school cliques: Their inherent insecurity
requires them to stomp on others whose voices don't support theirs.
It's how they survive. In other words, they're a sad bunch. So don't be
angry with them.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
so... basically you offer, as proof of a liberal bias , your own opinion.
........how does this make you an expert? i'm still wondering just what you're an expert on. if you're an expert at voicing your opinion then, as this site clearly evidences, anyone can do that.
If Palin is elected 2012, we deserve our fate...
I almost wish it would happen, because then maybe people who detest the type of politician she seems to be (rhetoric-spouting, divisive, anti-intellectual, pseudo-populist, self-aggrandizing) will finally have the motivation to rise up in outrage and become active in opposing rabid partisanship and knee-jerk traditionalism. Sometimes it takes a common cause to get folks moving out of their apathy and into civil engagement.
I believe for our nation to go forward, there has to be an exquisite tension between old vaues and new values, which is why we need both conservatives and liberals (and every stripe in-between): traditionalists having all the power = we stay in the last century; progressives having all the power = we become unmoored from our core values; Amish running the country vs. Bohemians running the country.
Both ideological positions have value & both have flaws, and neither is a monolith - instead having shades of grey as to ideas and positions. I would very much like to see us as citizens stop pushing against each other - as if we were magnets repelling the other - and face together in the same direction, working as one unit to move this nation forward. Compromise and co-operation can be a beautiful thing, ya know? It doesn't always have to be cut-throat competition or zero-sum game playing.
Oh, and I have no response to Ms. Venker's post itself, since I stopped reading it after seeing her intellectually-indefensible and morally-deficient tactic of stereotyping all Liberals as being of one mind, one kind, all the same. That's sloppy and false thinking and invalidates all the rest of her opinion. Debate is much more fruitful when we don't approach it assuming the other side is the enemy.
I notice that on her homepage, Suzanne Venker links to her blog called "No Bull Mom". It seems that "conservatives" are very fond of bragging about their "no bull" message.
However, when reading Venker's arguments there is a lot of "bull" indeed, from outright attacks to hypocrisy to ignoring basic facts. This has all been sufficiently covered by other comments, and Venker has completely failed to address most of these points.
This discussion could be expanded to talking about why "conservatives" are so insistant on claiming that their message is "no bull", when the opposite is actually the case if you review the facts.
But perhaps that is for another discussion thread.
Replying to my own comment.
I notice that on her site, Venker quotes "Dr. Laura Schlessinger", but she is not a Ph.D. in anything relevant to what she is dealing with, and her license has been inactive for years.
Why do "conservatives" insist on misleading people with Ph.D. titles?
For those of you who argued that I have it all wrong -- that most Americans consider themselves liberal -- here are the facts:
June 15, 2009
“Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.
______________________
The reason it appears as if America is a liberal country is that the media (editors, journalists, and Hollywood), along with our colleges and universities, make up most of the 21% of Americans who consider themselves liberal; and they hold most of the power. We see and hear from them daily.
Moderates are a close second to those who consider themselves conservative. And based on the fact that Obama's ratings are beginning to fall, I suspect many of these moderates didn't realize just how liberal Obama was until it was too late.
First of all: What is Suzanne Venker an "expert" at?
And why has she failed to address most of the criticism addressed at her?
Other people have already addressed the hilarity that is the text we are now debating, so I don't have much to add . However, I do have some comments regarding specific claims:
# Second, traditional Americans are a confident
# bunch. Generally speaking, they lay down at
# night knowing the truth is in their court.
In other words, blind confidence in one's ideology trumps facts?
# Liberals toss and turn with anger, resentment,
# or just a steadfast conviction that they're
# victims of an unjust society .
Is this similar to the way you seem to be tossing and turning with anger, resentment, or just a steadfast convictions that you are the victim of the evil " liberal media "?
# Third, the more personal the attack from the
# Left is, the more satisfying this should be
# for the conservative.
Why should personal attacks be "satisfying"? Should "liberals" be satisfied at your personal attacks?
# Indeed, the more of a fit people have, the
# more you know you're on to something. People
# only spew vitriol when they're up against a
# wall.
First, I would have to disagree with you there. I mostly get really angry when I'm convinced my argument is sound, and feel that the other party is deliberately telling untruths to "win" the debate.
Secondly, aren't you guilty exactly of "spewing vitriol" by basically labeling anyone who disagrees with you as hateful, self-pitying, and so on?
# And they have the microphone, which is terribly
# unfortunate.
This little sentence, I think, speaks volumes about your actual views on the matter. If I disagree with you, it is unfortunate if I get to speak up about it. Is that it?
Yes, in some circles I am sure it is "terribly unfortunate" that people with an opposing view are allowed to use the microphone. But not in democracies.
# But they're also like high school cliques: Their
# inherent insecurity requires them to stomp on others
# whose voices don't support theirs. It's how they
# survive. In other words, they're a sad bunch.
Like any criticism of Bush was automatically rejected as "un-American"?
And indeed, like any criticism of Palin is automatically rejected as "biased liberal slander"?
The bottom line is that your text seems to be not only self-contradictory, but in fact rather hypocritical. You accuse others of something you are guilty of yourself in the same sentence! I would have found that quite amusing if it hadn't been for the fact that I know that there are a lot of people who think exactly like you out there.
Whatever our imperfections, American culture, policy, and institutions are nominal, if not leading, examples of liberalism.
These labels have lost their entertainment value, and never had much use, except to divide Americans against themselves.
Way to go.
Sorry, Suzanne. But pretty much if you switch the words "liberal" and "conservative" in every place in your little opinion piece here, then you've got the true story.
Do you watch anything else but Fox "News?"
You sure are sounding like you're up against a wall!
- a proud member of the liberal majority in this wonderful U.S.A.
Divide and rule.
The teachers had a problem maintaining control over the school, so they divided half the playground into kids that had to wear red and half that had to wear blue. Nobody was allowed to wear any other color - and both sides were then urged on to pick on anyone wearing a different shirt.
This trick has always worked, even in ancient Rome.
So that is where the US has come - voters played like a fool to reject anyone not of their political signature, so neither side gets what they want, and no new political color can enter the system.
Looking in from the outside, it is laughable. And you bet, we laugh over it a lot here in Europe. We are taking bets - and the consensus is drifting towards a civil war in the US within one generation.
I've been making the same point for years. Here in the US, both major parties are ideologically frozen. And we get nowhere because of it. I've been a registered independent for 30 years now. I've considered becoming a Democrat or a Republican many times but I just can't stomach either side. Truth be told, I find the Republicans more repugnant because of how religion has hijacked that party. But the Democrats drive me crazy as well -- just a little less.
And please don't for a moment think the US is a nation "of the people". Special interest money rules this country. I don't have a private jet to take elected officials to exotic locales to play golf. Therefore, my concerns as a citizen are of no interest to anyone who supposedly represents me. Our political system is a sham.