George Rebane

The 'Liberal Mind' segment of RR is dedicated to the analysis and illustration of how fundamentally different are the highways and byways of reason in the liberal (progressive) mind that give rise to their heartfelt and fervent efforts to create what to the rest of us often seems like a perverted and insane world.  In these pages we have another confirmation of this which is so clear and compelling that it needs its own posting.

I began ‘Ruminations – 29jun12’ with a segment on another instance in which the Left seeks to summarily shut down and eliminate media voices with which it cannot compete in ideas and new reporting.  Specifically, I reported on the latest of longstanding efforts by the Soros funded Media Matters to shut down Fox News, a media channel that has eaten alive the competing left-leaning lamestream outlets in news and commentary offerings.  I argue that such tactics are totally asymmetrical from the polarized political poles.

The gauntlet, to revealingly argue the other side, has most prominently been picked up by Mr Steven Frisch, a long-time reader and welcome (when being civil) antagonist of RR.  Mr Frisch is CEO of the Sierra Business Council, and is also a leading regional progressive intellectual and apologist for collectivist causes who has repeatedly denied any such biases and resents leftwing appellations as "name calling".  Its name notwithstanding, SBC is a regional NGO that promotes liberal policies and is funded by public and foundation grant monies.

The following comment stream from the cited Ruminations post is repeated here in my continued effort to illuminate the liberal mindset.  An unfortunate artifact of the progressive debate on these issues is the progressive penchant for reducing the arguments to the address and critique of specific individuals.  Their ability to generalize and to embrace an ideological issue per se is often limited.   The exchange in the relevant comment thread follows –

*** Posted by: Steven Frisch | 01 July 2012 at 07:32 AM

The point I am making is that this is sour grapes personified.

First, I have personally crossed two picket lines to see movies in my life, the first Monty Pythons' Life of Brian and the second Martin Scorsese' The Last Temptation of Christ. In one case the Christian Coalition, in another, called for the boycott and picketing the Family Research Council. Only last year the group One Million Mom's called a boycott of JC Penney over the their use of Ellen DeGeneres as a spokesperson because she is gay. The same group called for a boycott of Toys R Us for including a gay character in the Archie comic book series. In 2009 Rush Limbaugh called for a boycott of GM because they took 'bailout' money from the Obama administration. The Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute called for a boycott of Girl Scout cookies because the Girl Scouts support Planned Parenthood. The American Family Association called for a boycott of Old Navy for supporting the "It Gets Better" campaign against anti-gay teen bullying. US Christian Ministries called for a boycott of Starbucks for advertising its tolerance of gay rights and gun control laws. Mike Huckabee called for a boycott of NPR after Juan Williams was fired.

Second, it is ludicrous to critique Media Matters for taking legitimate and constitutionally protected action against a particular media entity when more conservative entities have done exactly the same thing over the years in numerous instances. The Powell memo pretty clearly spells out how conservatives, beginning in the early 1970's, identified that they were losing the 'public relations' fight over the future of America, and went on to build a specific infrastructure to affect American public opinion and media. The memo was picked up by numerous organizations and used as a blue print to construct what David Brock has called the "The Republican Noise Machine". In short, the Powell memo is the Brock strategy, articulated 40 years ago, by the right. And David Brock should know; when he was part of that very same noise machine and writing about the evils of Hilary Clinton he was a darling of the conservative right. Now that he has switched sides and is exposing fallacy on the right he is public enemy number one. The case I am making is that the results of the Powell memo, the building of a conservative media, a network of right wing think tanks using pseudo-science to advance their agenda, and providing a training ground for right wing activists, is no different than what David Brock is doing. It is the height of hypocrisy to object to it on the part of Media Matters, while holding up the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Reason Foundation, and Brent Bozells' Media Research Center, which is doing exactly the same thing, as heroes.

And finally, I would ask conservatives here: if they actually support he idea there is something wrong with private sector support for alternative media and criticism? This is protected free speech in our society. The constitution does not limit speech, or the adoption of a strategy to criticize or hold media accountable, on the part of a private party. The constitution protects us from GOVERNMENT intrusion into free speech.

*** Posted by: George Rebane | 01 July 2012 at 08:10 AM

StevenF 732am – Thanks for that thorough demonstration of how liberals form analogues. There is nothing in the examples and citations you gave that even comes close in intent and functionality to what Media Matters is doing in their attempt to shut down Fox News. That you equate efforts to START modes of communication and messaging with the opposite efforts to STOP such channels is again most revealing and confirming. It is of a piece to which 'The Liberal Mind' section of RR is dedicated, and most closely continues such illustrations as
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/09/the-liberal-mind-giving-and-receiving.html

It is such gross differences in the fundamental way that collectivists vs conservatives reason, the logics that they each subscribe to, that makes our co-operative future together doubtful and more unlikely every day. And as has been reported in these pages, the basis for such differences have also been observed clinically in the regions of the brains both sides use when thinking about such topics. We more often than not view each other as somewhat insane.

*** Posted by: Steven Frisch | 01 July 2012 at 09:12 AM

George, I find it amazing that you never seem to be able to actually answer questions. The strategy of Media Matters is the EXACT same strategy that the Media Research Center is using, with almost exactly the same tactics. Why is it a problem when Media Matters deploys the same tactic? Why do you object to this if it is constitutionally protected free speech? It just goes to show you that your "constitutional" governance position is malarky; it is "the constitution protects my free speech but not your free speech". …

It is evident that Mr Frisch fashioned out of whole cloth the notion that I objected to Media Matters' exercise of free speech, which I have nowhere done.  Yet resuscitating that red herring seems to be the only thing on which Mr Frisch can hang any countering argument.  And so goes what passes for reasoned dialogue.

Related materials and supportive arguments are found in ‘The Liberal Mind’ section of RR.

[correction]  Per Mr Frisch's decorous request, I have added the first two comments of this thread to the above record.  They were originally omitted because Mr Frisch's 711am comment missed the mark on my original point so badly that I didn't think that it would contribute to the present exposition.  However, upon reconsideration, I believe that Mr Frisch is right and I was wrong.  Rereading the complete sequence does add a certain missing flavor and completes the stew.