Jonah Goldberg to MRCTV: How Liberals Stack the Deck Against Conservatives
If you have some free time on your hands, you might enjoy MRCTV's interview with Jonah Goldberg on his book The Tyranny of Cliches. If you've ever found it maddening that the media would present an issue like abortion with one side as hardline ideological conservatives and the other side as non-ideological humanitarians, you might be ready for Goldberg's thesis -- liberals have a bad habit of pretending to be non-ideological. He tells MRCTV's Dan Joseph they even lie to themselves.
In the interview, Goldberg recommends George Orwell’s 1946 essay “Politics And the English Language” as one of the great writings of the 20th century and a starting point for his book and the thesis that the media and the popular culture stack the deck against conservatism: (video below)
GOLDBERG: He [Orwell] talks about how – he doesn’t use the word ‘cliche,’ but it’s what he means, euphemisms and what not, stale language – that these things end up doing your thinking for you. And there are all of these cliched ideas, cliched formulations, that we indoctrinate kids with, that we indoctrinate Americans with through popular culture, through the media, in language and literature, that sort of stack the deck against conservatism, stack the deck in favor of a progressive statist outlook on life, and what I try to go through a bunch of them, and debunk them, and set the record straight.
Dan Joseph asked about how this is playing out in the Obama era:
GOLDBERG: Liberals, first and foremost, they lie to themselves. They think they’re not ideological. President Obama loves to say he doesn’t believe in ideology, he only cares about what works, he doesn’t care where the ideas come from. Jonathan Chait, Paul Krugman, a lot of these liberal writers that constantly talk about how liberals only care about what the best policies are, about doing good, and they don’t have an ideological agenda. And so what I argue is that first of all, that’s just nonsense. And the idea of looking back on Obama’s first three and a half years and saying ‘wow, this is a guy who had no ideology, and was just married to the best practices and only cared about what works’ – you know, you sort of, if you believe that, you should probably give up your day job as a taste tester at a lead paint factory.
You can also read a summary of Goldberg's thesis at National Review Online.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I'm listening to this now and
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 8:51am.
I'm listening to this now and already nodding my head hearing Goldberg talk about 'social justice.'
Liberals use euphemisms like "social justice" to encompass a whole array of issues, all lumped up in one word. By doing so, they can expand it to include whatever they want. And he's spot on when he says there is no defined limit to what that term can encompass. It expands to whatever they want it to.
And my mind immediately went to liberals' idea of "fair share" of taxes that the "wealthy" should pay. None of them ever define what a "fair share" is, and their definition of "wealthy" is also subject to change on any given day. When asked, they always resort to comparisons among tax rates (the Buffett/secretary example) or analysis of "how" people got their wealth ("earned" or "unearned). But when it comes right down to it, the answer to how much their fair share is, is always simply "more."
All-encompassing liberal terms
Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 9:49am.
mb,
Like "climate change"?
Oh, yeah,
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:17am.
that's another good one!
And I just realized I erred my description of liberal "limits" on such issues. I meant to include Goldberg's observation that there is no limit to how much should actually be done to rectify what they see as inequalities on these issues like "social justice." ( I actually did explain it that way in terms of the amount of taxes they think the rich should pay: more.)
Liberals don't see any limitations at all on what they want to control in pursuit of a goal, even if it turns out that the results are negligible.
It's always "At least we're doing something!"
or my favorite :
If it saves even one life, )or prevents one accident, or keeps one prospective dropout in school, or helps one person to keep their house, or whatever).....it's worth it!!
And in the case of "climate change" they also display their attitude that no sacrifice is too great, because we don't know, and it might help, and we can't take the chance!!
Who knows, we could find out it actually made things worse, but at least we tried!!
Obama lies
Submitted by ohio granny on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 9:00am.
Obama lies and he knows he lies. He lies because he knows if he told the truth about what he really is about he could not be elected as dog catcher.
Obama is a compulsive and serial liar. He has lied for so long about so many things, some of which he even believes. He cannot and will not tell the truth about what he wants to accomplish during his next(?) 4 years in office if he hopes to have a chance of being reelected.
He lies because no one in the MSM will call him out. He lies because he has nothing else.
The number 1 reason he lies is because he has always gotten away with it.
HE IS A LIAR.
Waiting for comments from resident lib trolls, Jason, Jer, ect?
Submitted by creekrat on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:28am.
Think we will hear from any of them on this??
The state has not...
Submitted by P. Aaron on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:37pm.
...commanded them to act yet.
Goldberg
Submitted by QueenMum on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:13am.
One of the best pieces I've seen on NB. Will definitely be picking up the book.
“If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain
The exception to Goldberg's thesis is Obama's narcissism.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 12:29pm.
Narcissists, particularly those who are especially malignant, are very aware of ideology and use it as a way of centering attention on themselves. They manipulate the beliefs of their victims to the extent that the narcissist becomes the embodiment of the ideology and acts accordingly. Narcissists, if you recall, have little or no capacity to empathize with their victims EXCEPT to the extent they can capture the fawning attention they so deeply require. Their emotional connection is not completely lost, but instead intensely focused on the adoration and amazement and attention they manipulate from their victims. In that capacity, they are ideologues when it suits them. So narcissists are quite a different case from the garden-variety liberal or leftist automaton incapable of independent thought. When an emotional connection is completely absent, and when morals, values and ethics are cast aside or horribly mangled to justify the violent and/or destructive endpoints, we then go into complete sociopathy. Sociopaths are the "ends justify the means" types, who openly do not care how much destruction they reap as long as they get their way. Sociopaths are the extreme of narcissists, beyond malignancy or malevolence.
A perfect example is Huffington Post wanting it both ways .
Submitted by laree on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 5:57pm.
Huffington Post, implying white DNA participants are racist rednecks when they find out they have Eb halo type. "Sub Sarharan African" So does President Obama's Bunch cousins. I can see how the President would be upset and he's not white, and expected to find American Indian ancestry in the Bunch Family ancestry.
Melungeon DNA Study Reveals Ancestry Upset's "A Whole Lot Of People" Huffington Post, By TRAVIS LOLLER 05/24/12 05:15 PM ET
In Dreams, p. 13, Mr. Obama says that "a distant ancestor" of hers "had indeed been a full-blooded Cherokee". No evidence has been found to support this claim***.
Melungeon DNA study findings wipe out President Obama's Cherokee Ancestry.
So yeah if you are President Obama, and you have stated that you have a full blood Cherokee ancestor on your Grandmother Toot's side of the family, I could see why he might be upset. Turns out the President's Bunch cousins are part of Bunch YDNA test, and they come back Eb Sub Saharan African. Which is unhelpful because it's the President's ancestor Samuel Bunch's brother David Bunch who has descendants who applied to the Cherokee DAWES Rolls. According to the Melungeon YDNA study there was no American Indian component.