The Leftist media bubble has been punctured, and the results aren’t pretty.
If you are ‘left-wing’ or ‘liberal’, whether here in Australia, in the US or the UK, you can go through weeks, months, even years, without ever hearing a contrary view or opinion on major areas of policy.
In Australia, you can tune into ABC local radio, watch the ABC TV news, read the Sydney Morning Herald or the Melbourne Age, and not have your views challenged to any significant degree. Climate change is a serious problem that needs urgent action, border security is racist, Islam is a religion of peace, Trump is a racist, sexist Nazi, you know, that kind of thing – if you hold any of these views, every morning paper and every news report will confirm the rectitude of your positions.
In the UK, you have the BBC – the national broadcaster funded by extortion from the taxpayer, whose editorial position has always been firmly liberal/left.
In the US, take your pick: ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS. All support the liberal/left view, and all were squarely behind Clinton in the US election.
On the other hand, if you are ‘right-wing’ or ‘conservative’ however, you are constantly exposed to a tidal wave of contradictory views and opinions. Rarely would you hear from the mainstream media that curbing CO2 emissions might hurt the millions of poor in developing countries, or that border security is essential to protect a country’s citizens and security, or that Islam has some tenets which are clearly incompatible with Western democracy, or that Hillary Clinton is a corrupt, dishonest criminal who was always unfit to be president.
The result of this is that those inhabiting the Left/liberal media bubble, inhaling the toxic gases of progressive journalism, are starved of the oxygen of rationality. It is this toxicity that results in many on the Left believing that anyone who holds a contrary opinion is quite literally evil or immoral. It isn’t just a simple matter of difference in political opinion, but more accurately that disagreement means immorality and wickedness (see Moral Superiority of the Left).
Reality rushes in
Donald Trump becoming president has punctured that bubble for the first time in eight years, and its inhabitants, many of whom have known nothing else, are coping in the only way possible – by irrational behaviour, pathological hatred and extraordinary fear-mongering (see #womensmarch for some shocking evidence of this).
This situation rarely happens with the Right, because there exists no conservative bubble. We are continually exposed to Leftist propaganda and media spin, challenging our world view on a daily basis, and in some ways it is a good thing: many will have vastly better thought out and considered positions, because of the need to constantly check and re-check facts and opinions in the face of dissent, enabling them to argue them far more coherently than their Leftist counterparts, who at the first sign of challenge resort to hysteria and name-calling.
Our Leftist friends might do well to expose themselves and their ideas to some dissent now and again.
The stench of criminality and corruption follows the Clintons wherever they go.
Add it to the list: emails, intimidation, violence, corruption, dereliction of duty, pay to play, and now personal profit from the ‘charity’ work of the Clinton Foundation.
Don’t wait up for the mainstream media, Facebook or Twitter trends to update you on this – because the Left-wing curators of those sources of information will have buried it.
FBI investigators from across the country have been following leads into reports of bribery involving the Clinton Foundation. Multiple field offices have been involved in the investigation.
A report in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal (WSJ) by Devlin Barrett revealed that agents assigned to the New York field office have been carrying the bulk of the work in investigating the Clinton Foundation. They have received assistance from the FBI field office in Little Rock according to “people familiar with the matter, the WSJ reported. Other offices, including Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., have been collecting evidence regarding “financial crimes or influence-peddling.” (source)
Slick Willy will need to arrange another ‘surprise’ meeting with Loretta Lynch in a plane to make sure the DoJ nixes this investigation as well.
Ah, transparency, doncha just love it.
I previously wrote about the moral posturing that is characteristic of the Left – the arrogant belief that their positions on everything are fundamentally morally superior to those of their opponents, which entitles them to berate and pour scorn and disgust on those opponents at every opportunity, labelling them ‘haters’, ‘racists’, ‘homophobes’, ‘deniers’ and all sorts of other names.
We see it in the US, where Clinton thugs incited violence at Trump rallies, and voter fraud and rigging is endemic to the Democratic party. We also see it here, where laughably styled “anti-fascists” from the Left invariably kick off punch-ups with generally peaceful ‘Mum & Dad’ anti-Islam protesters.
I suggest that this misplaced moral posturing and superiority leads directly to the corruption, fraud and violent behaviour we see from the Left. Believing that one is morally superior convinces one that the ends, namely the implementation of those policies for the good of the people, justifies the means, namely the rigging, the intimidation and the ‘win at all costs’ attitude.
This characteristic can be also expressed as a lack of humility – a brazen arrogance and belief in their own certitude – that overrides any self-doubt and renders them incapable of considering that those positions may, in fact, not be correct.
UPDATE: What makes it worse for those on the Left is that they are confronted daily with large sections of the population supporting someone like Trump (or Bush, or Sarah Palin etc) and they are unable to reconcile this with their worldview in which such people are ‘immoral’. They are consequently unable to formulate any possible arguments to counter this ‘illogical’ situation, and they are left with no option but violence and hatred. Corruption and fraud inevitably follow as a justifiable means to an end, to save the population from its own ignorance and stupidity.
The Right generally do not suffer thus, and are almost always more reticent in sharing their views or being absolutely certain that they are correct. We see this all the time in daily life. The Left are the noisy, rowdy rabble who are so sure of themselves that they will intimidate and beat up their opponents—or chisel their names out of the pavement—never stopping for one minute to think, hmm, am I really 100% correct, and my opponent so wrong, that I therefore have the right to do violence against them?
No, they never stop to think. Even if they did, their answer would be: Yes I am. Cue violence.
Their arrogant and misplaced moral superiority leads directly to a ‘win at all costs’ mentality, because the ends justify the means, which results in inevitable corruption, fraud and violence.
A little bit of humility wouldn’t go amiss in the modern Left.
One of the most infuriating parts of debating anything with a Leftist is the insufferable smugness, self-satisfaction and pompous condescension that one has to endure.
This arises from the Left’s unshakeable belief that any view they hold is morally superior to any proposed alternative. Examples would include:
- Taking action on climate change: surely nobody with any moral compass could possibly oppose ‘saving the planet’, could they?
- Gay marriage: of course, you homophobe! Love conquers all! Yay!
- Islamophilia: because… multiculti!
- Refugees: let them all in, otherwise you’re just a bigoted hater.
- Brexit: anyone who voted for it is just RACIST and XENOPHOBIC!!!
Because most Leftists inhabit a progressive bubble in which no alternative views are ever heard (comprising the ABC, Twitter and Fairfax), they believe that no reasonable person could possibly hold any differing view, and thus their own view must be the only morally correct one.
But this perspective is very misleading.
Many small-c conservatives in Australia (and elsewhere) would disagree with all of the above examples, and persuasive arguments can be made to claim that opposing them is in fact morally superior:
- Climate change: is it morally acceptable to deny millions of people in the third world struggling in poverty access to cheap energy? Seems pretty immoral to me.
- Gay marriage: why should the institution of marriage, the bedrock of society and the only family grouping that can produce and raise children, be diluted to accommodate relationships that until relatively recently would be themselves regarded as ‘immoral’ and which already have been granted equal legal status?
- Islamophilia: denial of the clear fact that Islam as a political ideology is fundamentally incompatible with Western freedoms and democracy isn’t morally superior to a rational evaluation of such an ideology and its risks.
- Refugees: is opening our country’s borders to all without any consideration of the consequences for the native populations really a morally justifiable position? Or is it just a feel-good gesture to prop up the Left’s constant need for self-satisfaction?
- Brexit: why should a country choose to remain governed by unelected bureaucrats who are unaccountable to the population? Why should a nation put itself at risk because it no longer has control of its borders? Isn’t it immoral for a government to ignore the plight of its citizens at the expense of others?
In fact, for virtually any issue for which the Left claims moral superiority, we see that whilst there may be a superficial veneer of seeming to do good, underneath there is often a deeply immoral foundation.
The Left should stop always claiming the high ground, and the Right should stop always conceding it.