At least Picard was dealing with an opponent who was not arguing in bad faith!
Rush Limbaugh and Jeff Goldstein have raised the left's war on language for a long time (and Orwell of course defined it in 1984). Rush is correct in noting that "Everything about the left is perception, manipulation, and lies. Everything. Everything is 'Wag the Dog.' Everything is a structured deception."
What do terms such as "Tea Party" and "Sarah Palin" mean to you? Depending on your political view point, very different things. I am sure many of you have experienced how those terms to those on the left lead to a immediate negative visceral reaction. I have personally heard people I know to be relatively mild mannered polite Democrats, speak of Sarah Palin in misogynistic vile terms that make what Rush Limbaugh said of Sandra Fluke seem like a glowing endorsement in comparison...
This political branding is intentional. Branding and primacy are well recognized in marketing and advertising and unfortunately we have a media that is intentionally using these principals for their own political ends. It is very difficult to persuade someone of such an opinion once it is adopted. This battle to control language (and thought) is going on now in the media with trying to define and brand Rand Paul.
Rush Limbaugh and Jeff Goldstein have raised the left's war on language for a long time (and Orwell of course defined it in 1984). Rush is correct in noting that "Everything about the left is perception, manipulation, and lies. Everything. Everything is 'Wag the Dog.' Everything is a structured deception."
What do terms such as "Tea Party" and "Sarah Palin" mean to you? Depending on your political view point, very different things. I am sure many of you have experienced how those terms to those on the left lead to a immediate negative visceral reaction. I have personally heard people I know to be relatively mild mannered polite Democrats, speak of Sarah Palin in misogynistic vile terms that make what Rush Limbaugh said of Sandra Fluke seem like a glowing endorsement in comparison...
This political branding is intentional. Branding and primacy are well recognized in marketing and advertising and unfortunately we have a media that is intentionally using these principals for their own political ends. It is very difficult to persuade someone of such an opinion once it is adopted. This battle to control language (and thought) is going on now in the media with trying to define and brand Rand Paul.
Chris Matthews recently described Rand Paul as "far right" because describing him accurately as libertarian (which is a term much closer to Rand Paul's political philosophy) makes him potentially dangerous. Anyone who is reasonably familiar with Rand Paul (which unfortunately for Rand Paul is only a small percentage of the population) knows he is mostly for smaller government, less taxes, less foreign involvements and commitments, more freedom, and a greater emphasis on civil liberties. Those are issues that could potentially peel off some Democrat supporters. Matthews is not really trying to predict the GOP nominee, he is trying to damage Rand Paul and neutralize him (just like Sarah Palin was damaged and neutralized).
Meanwhile we have so called Republicans like John McCain doing the exact same thing to our own in calling Ted Cruz and Rand Paul "wacko birds." Because the Establishment wing of the GOP just want a slightly more conservative version of the Democrat spoil system to be maintained. They like social programs and policies provided that they benefit their constituents and donors. Better they neutralize Rand Paul and get a guy they can work with in there as their nominee (like Chris Christie). And if Hillary ends up winning anyway...well they know they can work out some sort of deal with the Clintons.
Meanwhile we have so called Republicans like John McCain doing the exact same thing to our own in calling Ted Cruz and Rand Paul "wacko birds." Because the Establishment wing of the GOP just want a slightly more conservative version of the Democrat spoil system to be maintained. They like social programs and policies provided that they benefit their constituents and donors. Better they neutralize Rand Paul and get a guy they can work with in there as their nominee (like Chris Christie). And if Hillary ends up winning anyway...well they know they can work out some sort of deal with the Clintons.
This is an intentional effort to plow the road for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and the political positions she represents. And while Hillary Clinton is not inevitable, she has a surprising amount of support from the GOP Elite.
First, they're hardly the Elite, they're the Whigs.
ReplyDeleteSecond, they just keep giving us more and more evidence they've gone over to the enemy.
And, just because the Demos say it, doesn't make it true (witness one Barack Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm). The Lefties have been pushing this, "Resistance Is Futile", thing for a while now, trying to stampede everyone else into giving up.
I agree and I do not mean to imply Hillary is inevitable (she is not). But we need to recognize who are traitors in our midst and call them what they are.
Delete