The Liberal Mind – Messing with the Messenger

September 2010
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

The Liberal Mind – Messing with the Messenger

08 September 2010

George Rebane

The fascinating facets of the progressive/liberal mind are popping up all over the place. Have you noticed how a liberal invariably responds to a message that s/he can’t handle? It’s a simple four step procedure that almost always works with an audience that has trouble following conversations.

1. Ignore the Merits of the Message;
2. Posit (fabricate if necessary) the Messenger’s Motivation;
3. Attack the Messenger’s Motivation as the real issue, and thereby
4. Divert the discussion to the Messenger’s Motivation, and, hopefully Morals.

One must be careful here not to ascribe this tactic in a partisan way. Even though progressives dominate the Democratic Party, they are not limited to that political affliction, as some have also been found in otherwise proper Republican circles. Nevertheless, it is only from the left that we hear the most egregious demands to still opposition voices.

These are a couple of samples for Exhibit A. Check out the most recent efforts to get Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck off the air (here) and to shut down Fox News. And these efforts by liberals to still opposing voices occur at all levels. For example, locally here in Nevada County, California there have been countless calls from the left to shut down conservative voices like mine and others of a similar ideological bent. This is an ingrained and worldwide tactic of the progressive mind that goes back to the turn of the last century. When your ideas cannot compete, eliminate the source of opposing ideas.

Posted in Culture Comments, Our Country, The Liberal Mind

5 responses to “The Liberal Mind – Messing with the Messenger”

Mikey McD

08 September 2010

George, remember when you and I were blowing the whistle about the local unfunded liability crisis in 2007 and the progressives were attacking our motivation as messengers? ‘They’ said I was doing it to solicit the county investment business and you to promote your blog or SESF. Here we are 3 years later being crushed by the weight we warned everyone about 3 years ago… if only they would have listened to the message and not focused on us handsome messengers :).

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

08 September 2010

I refuse to call them progressives for one thing. They are liberals and they have failed so miserably their moniker is now an epithet. That suits me just fine. They cannot compete on a level playing field of ideas so they consistently do their best to shut down the opposition. When I debated them they always brought three or four people to take me on. I still defeated them because I told the truth in a way people could understand and the liberal hypocrisy always became exposed. I had a radio show on KNCO from about 1995 to 98 and the usual suspects would call in a challenge Peter and I and we enjoyed skewering them. When I debated as the head of CABPRO, I would do my homework so when they attacked I was able to expose them. As long as we keep telling the truth we will prevail. The liberal thinks the American people are stupid and we think the American people are smart. That is a distinct advantage for us.

LikeLike
George Rebane

08 September 2010

Unfortunately Todd, that is what the proto-communists came to be called around the world at the turn of the last century, and through self-promotion the label has stuck – but I understand your point. The label ‘regressives’ was also available at the time, but for some reason they refused it.
Mikey, the bittersweet aftermath of our early warnings is that the know-nothings who excoriated us are today nowhere to be seen defending the innocence of unions as a dominant factor in today’s financial trauma. But they persevered with their lies that gave cover to the Democrat congress and got the Chief Community Organizer elected as our Fundamental Transformer.
Among the current batch of lies is the dooser, ‘we can regulate and tax our way out of deficits. Don’t worry, be happy.’

LikeLike
Russ Steele

08 September 2010

Dennis Prager writing at National Review On LIne has some food for thought on how the left and right view America.
One unbridgeable divide between Left and Right is how each views alternatives to present-day America.
Those on the Left imagine an ideal society that has never existed, and therefore seek to “fundamentally transform” America. When liberals imagine an America fundamentally transformed, they envision it becoming a nearly utopian society in which there is no greed, no racism, no sexism, no inequality, no poverty, and ultimately no unhappiness.
Conservatives, on the other hand, look around at other societies and look at history and are certain that if America were fundamentally transformed, it would become just like those other societies. America would become a society of far less liberty, of ethically and morally inferior citizens, and of much more unhappiness. Moreover, cruelty would increase exponentially around the world.
Conservatives believe that America is an aberration in human history; that, with all the problems that a society made up of flawed human beings will inevitably have, America has been and remains a uniquely decent society. Therefore, conservatives worry that fundamentally transforming America — making America less exceptional — will mean that America gets much worse.
Liberals, on the other hand, worry over the opposite possibility — that America will remain more or less as it is.

LikeLike
D. King

08 September 2010

Turn Off Fox.
Yeah, that’ll fix it!

LikeLike