Saturday, October 18, 2008

Illiberal Liberals

I picked up a "conservative newspaper last week, 10/9, the Detroit News, to check football odds, and encountered even here five articles against Sarah Palin. There was: an article about the Dems love for Tina Fey; a large, supportive article about Palin critic Anne Kilkenny; a large political cartoon by Larry Wright making Palin out to be an idiot; a small piece about Todd Palin being under investigation; and a snarky aside by music critic Adam Graham-- "--audiences are getting their laughs simply by watching Sarah Palin on the campaign trail."

When journalists are 99% against her, I guess this is conservative stuff, compared to what conglomerate pop entertainers like Madonna are saying, or the noise in corporate-owned "alternative" papers ("alternative" has become mainstream). One "alternative" liberal quack, in a piece called "Stoking the Fury," calls her McCain's "pet Alaskan killer weasel," among other things.

The fury I've seen the last several weeks has been against Sarah Palin; from the outset, a mad McCarthyite hysteria, and I can't say I've determined the reason. Based on her love for her newborn son, I'd say she's a good person. Yet so widespread is the feeling against her that I'm looked at curiously at work and elsewhere for deviating from it. It's a pack mentality.

Progressives have so awaited the lynch mob for Obama, to the extent of making up stories-- a lynch mob which never materialized-- they've failed to notice THEY'VE become a lynch mob going after Sarah Palin, who's been attacked with unprecedented vitriol and fury from every corner of the culture and media.

Strange, isn't it, that liberals have become the most intolerant segment of society?

There's a bizarre disconnect in their heads that forever exempts THEMSELVES from withholding the vile statements they condemn in others. THEY can attack someone's looks, background, and way of speaking, without a shred of the inhibition they impose on the rest of society. It may have to do with the fact that many of them are from privileged backgrounds, and have always been exempt from the strictures and penalties of society which are ruthlessly applied to you and me.

Case in point in this regard is the much discussed figure William Ayers. One thing we can say for certain is that despite past transgressions he's landed well on his feet; holding a cushy teaching job at a university; appointed to posh posts at monied foundations. Is it because his father was among the power elite of society; chairman of a gigantic corporation? Did William use his connections? Did his family ties have anything to do with his easy and unrepentant rehabilitation? What do you think? Would the average citizen be accorded such treatment? (I dated a woman for a while in Philly who lived in a halfway house and was continually being sent back to the slammer, hard time, for failing drug tests, a violation of her probation. She was given no slack whatsoever by this society.)

It's ironic that William Ayers is the walking and talking example of things that ARE wrong in this country. He should be protesting against himself. That he doesn't hang his head in shame every day is yet one more instance of the standard liberal schizoid personality.


King said...

What's the saying about "the enemy of my enemy"?
What Governor Palin and me have in common is a distate for the centralized east coast media-- for me, esp the literary/publishing/magazine end of it, which I'd as soon see broken up in order to free thought and speech in this country.
What have liberals done for the cause of the underground writer?
I can't think of anything. I don't see why I should then follow in lockstep with them and their febrile, closed-minded ideas.
As I've said, if McCain somehow wins this election, it will be because of backlash against the media.
Btw, anyone notice how fully this beast went after plumber Joe from Toledo? The guy's been investigated more thoroughly than the two main candidates-- probably because he represents an independent viewpoint. Scary.

King said...

p.s. Take note. I'm a fairly objective observer of this campaign, not having truck with either party. Yet even I've become alarmed by the one-sided direction events are taking. The 10/15 USA Today had a column discussing the fact that on many college campuses, support for Obama is 100%. 100%! Talk about a generation lacking independent thought!
If Obama wins, he may become unassailable, as anyone who criticizes him will quickly be labelled by the monolithic media as racist.
We're setting up for a lot of things right now-- liberty being whipsawed now by the Left.
Note the Jacob Weisberg article in Newsweek attacking (quite unnecessarily, as they have no political power) Libertarians.
No, the financial crisis is not in any way a result of libertarian economics of the Von Mises, Hayek, Rothbard school. Quite the reverse. It proves libertarian economic warnings.
(See on this blog my post, "The Conservative Fallacy.")
Re Palin.
Undergrounders should note she has an actual record fighting monopolies-- the kind of monopolies we oppose. She took on the oil and gas monopoly in her state and brought competition to the game, which benefitted her constituents. It's a solid record.
I hope Obama does bring actual change when he's elected (and not the wrong kind of change). When you look at his record, OBJECTIVELY, however, behind the glare of media hype, what you find is a Chicago Daley-Machine politician who did not take on the machine in any way. Quite a contrast from Palin, who took on old boy networks in both political parties in her state.
Finally, what's the Bush economic Summit with other world leaders, right after the election, all about? "Crisis" brings totalitarianism, does it not?