Friday, February 26, 2010

Andrew Klavan - "Liberalism Exposed: Beyond the Elitist, Preening America-Hating Stereotypes"

Video embedded below.


  1. Do you post this guy because you think he's funny or because he's actually saying something important people may be interested to know about or both?

    i'm just trying to understand your thinking with stuff like this.

  2. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - I think he is funny; also know that it bothers you :P .

  3. haha he's funny because he's a pulp fiction novelist.

    Honestly it doesn't bother me, well hardliner politics bother me in general, but this kind of thing in particular tends to reinforce my suspicion that what really unites the Right is not any kind of actual practical vision for how people's lives could be better, or how this country can be better, or even that they have ideas and concerns that make sense- but instead are united in basically social resentments against what they perceive in their head to be "left" people or "left ideas". They've convinced themselves that the media is "liberal" for god's sakes- so when I read things like townhall, or Sites like Drudge, Pajamas media and then read Chinese hardliner websites or talk to Chinese hardliners- it's really remarkable how similair the thought process is between right-wingers world over. It's about chooseing the facts and evidence you want to fit the way you feel, instead of feeling a way based on acutal facts and evidence, even evidence these people are aware of. Everyone does that to a degree, but the abillty of power centers to create hardline followers and worshipers is an incredible phenomenon.

    I think the fascination right wing types have with Mike Moore is a good illustration, I mean whatever you think of him personally, the same people who do propaganda for a living like Fox News or Andrew Klaven, say their upset because he is a propagandist. It's all projection- meanwhile Moore actually puts information out their that is at least raising people's awareness of serious issues we have. The Right wing doesn't want these things talked about, health insurance companies for example certaintly aren't going to talk about them.

  4. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - what unites the right is getting the government out of our lives if at all reasonably possible.

    I think calling these people propagandists takes it to far.

  5. Haha right, untill your a "religious" right person, in which case you want the government to intervene in people's lives to tell them who they should and shouldn't marry, or to decide for people whether an abortion is moral or not. Or a "foreign policy" conservative in which case you want the government intervening in other peoples lives, abroad. or an "economic libertarian" in which case you think the government should intervene to make it harder for poeple in their place of work to organize and collectivley bargain.

    I think propagandist is rather mild. Propaganda wasn't always a bad word in the United States, The New York Times is propaganda, so is Fox News. The NyTimes has a lot more information in it then a whole day of watching fox news will give you, but that doesnt make them any less propaganda- you could argue about which medium is more or less vulgar.

  6. haha yeah, until the "religious right" wants to tell people who they should marry or adopt, or have the government decide for people the morality of the abortion question. Or a "foreign policy conservative" in which case you want the government intervening in people's lives abroad, or an "fiscal conservative" in which case you want the government to intervene in people's lives by making it harder in their place of work to organize with others and collectively bargain, then the state has to intervene.

    Propagandists is mild. It wasn't always considered a bad term you know. Art and advertisments used to just be called "propaganda". Surely you walk down times square and the advertisments are inocuous to you, because you know someone is trying to sell you something. Usually depending on how much relatable facts are in a piece of propaganda determines how convinceing it is towards leading people the acceptable social conclusions the creators of the propaganda want.

  7. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - uniting principles are by their nature broad. There could be caveats to them for certain subgroups. The few exceptions does not take away from the over all unity. Enough exceptions in the same group and you are no longer talking about exceptions; you are talking about a different over arching group that happens to agree with another over arching group on a certain issue.

  8. yeah that makes sense if you are talking about people looking at facts and logic. As far as I can tell there is nothing that really unites the right in america anymore other then opposeing "the left"- whatever that is. at least somone like Reagan had a coherant economic and social vision, it was a terrible vision and we are suffering alot of the consequences of that vision now, but at least it made sense.


Related Posts with Thumbnails

Like what you read; Subscribe/Fan/Follow