Friday, November 30, 2007

Conformist News Network

About the Republican You Tube Debate on CNN, John Fund writes, "Almost a third of the questioners seem to have some ties to Democratic causes or candidates." I noticed something funny after the debate when they interviewed their focus group of "undecided Republicans" and a woman announced she favored John Edwards. A Republican who wants to vote for John Edwards?

I caught a few minutes of Keith Olbermann last night as he and John Edwards mocked the Republicans because they are outraged that they had to answer a question from a Democrat. If they can't do that, do they have what it takes to be President of the United States? Of course, if an unidentified Republican asked tough questions of a Democrat during a debate, Olbermann would lead the charge against "Republican dirty tricks."

In addition to Gen. Keith Kerr, who turns out from to be connected to the Clinton campaign, the list of Democrat questioners is raising suspicions.

Now it appears that an amazing number of partisan figures posed many of the 30 questions at the GOP debate all the while pretending to be CNN’s advertised “undecided voters.” Yasmin from Huntsville, Alabama turns out to be a former intern with the Council on American Islamic Relations, a group highly critical of Republicans. Blogger Michelle Malkin has identified other plants, including declared Obama supporter David Cercone, who asked a question about the pro-gay Log Cabin Republicans. A questioner who asked a hostile question about the pro-life views of GOP candidates turned out to be a diehard John Edwards supporter (and a slobbering online fan of Mr. Cooper). Yet another “plant” was LeeAnn Anderson, an activist with a union that has endorsed Mr. Edwards.

How could CNN let this happen? Was it planned? Is it some sort of conspiracy?

I don't think so. I believe we're seeing the power of philosophy in action. The liberals at CNN would pick liberal questioners because they would think those questions are the best, most challenging ones to ask Republicans.

Remember, liberals think alike to a degree that it is hard for the rest of us to understand. They have a homogenous ideology, from which they do not stray for fear that they will be denounced as bad people. Progressive education is designed to destroy the virtue of independence; it creates me-too mediocrities who are terrified of thinking different from the group. Political correctness explicitly directs liberals on what they can think. They are accustomed to picking up the cues of what is acceptable thought and what is not.

So when the people at CNN hear questions about God, guns and gays, they think, "Yes, those are the pertinent, challenging questions we must ask of these religious conservatives." And those questions are not unreasonable. But questions regarding individual rights, liberty, the validity of the welfare state, the threat of totalitarian Islam, the anti-progress threat of environmentalism and so on do not occur to liberals. These questions are so far from altruist-statist-collectivist premises that liberals don't understand their importance and might not even be able to understand them at all.

CNN failed to examine the questioners because they failed to examine their bias. The liberal imagination cannot fathom ideas outside the ideology approved by the group. To the people at CNN there is their way of thinking and then there are those extremist wingnuts that no reasonable person takes seriously.

Once again, no conspiracy is necessary to explain suspicious leftist action. Conformists don't need to coordinate their actions, they need merely to act on the premises they hold in common.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

"But questions regarding individual rights, liberty, the validity of the welfare state, the threat of totalitarian Islam, the anti-progress threat of environmentalism and so on do not occur to liberals."

I agree with this. But I am curious what you think of this Conservative's take on liberals:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009337.html

This guy has got more philosophical flaws than you can shake a stick at but I think his "law of majority-minority relations" has something to it. Auster sees everything in terms of race because he is a racial determinist (ie racialist) but I think he has fleshed out the way the liberals apply altruism and egalitarianism in practice on many issues. You have phrased it as "the sacrifice of the strong to the weak." He's getting at the same thing from his own flawed traditionalist conservative foundation.

John Kim

Anonymous said...

Actually these are better links to Auster's "laws":

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/000933.html

http://bravenewworldwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/list-of-instances-of-austers-laws-of.html

Again, there is no denying that Auster is a hard core racist but so are Leftists. So I think some of Auster's observations hold.

John Kim

Myrhaf said...

I would call Auster's first law a consequence of altruism and multiculturalism. I'm not sure how useful a first law is if it is a consequence of more fundamental premises.

Jeeter said...

You said in this post, "Progressive education is designed to destroy the virtue of independence; it creates me-too mediocrities who are terrified of thinking different from the group."

Please explain this idea further, as I have always thought that progressive education is designed to do exactly the opposite.

I would appreciate learning more about how you came to make this statement. Thank you.

Myrhaf said...

Jeeter, check out this post:

http://myrhaf.blogspot.com/2007/06/missing-virtue.html

Thanks.

Jim May said...

I caught a few minutes of Keith Olbermann last night as he and John Edwards mocked the Republicans because they are outraged that they had to answer a question from a Democrat.

They should talk.

Myrhaf said...

Excellent point, Jim. And the way Hillary Clinton stays away from the press is appalling in a free country with free speech. It can only happen because the MSM is happy not to ask her tough questions. The MSM has become the propaganda arm for the Democrat Party.