Liberal journalists acknowledge the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, but seem more concerned with the threat posed by Republicans who allegedly exaggerate that threat for political gain.
It is infinitely amusing to hear the confused chatter emanating from a class of self-appointed intellectual barons who claim lordship over national discourse. Like the aloof aristocrats mocked in the nineteenth century works of Thackeray and Austen, the elite commentators of America’s journalistic community inspire much merry derision. With self-righteous certainty, they project their many analyses, all of which are designed to reflect the assumptions of American liberalism. By holding up the liberals’ assumptions as self-evident truths, the liberal media “analysts” endeavor to define the terms of all public debate and to further liberalism’s control over intellectual culture. In doing so, the liberal chattering class forgets basic ideas not shared by its elite community. At times, it is hard to keep from laughing at their obstinate insulation from opposing ideas.
This phenomenon was on perfect display on Sunday, August 13 on The Chris Matthews Show. Host Chris Matthews, presiding over a panel of commentators, was exploring such subjects as the recent foiled terrorist plot against several airplanes. It was easy to see the liberal worldview underlying the consensus established during the dialogue.
Mr. Matthews began by asking Howard Fineman of Newsweek magazine about President Bush’s words about the aborted attack after playing a clip the President’s words. Here is that segment from the transcript:
President GEORGE W. BUSH: This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.
MATTHEWS: You know, it smacks of choreography. I want to ask you, Howard, 33 percent approval rating for the president, the lowest he's ever had. Eighteen percent edge by the Democrats in winning seats in the House this year. The president is now bringing us all back to 9/11 again. Can he do it? Can he say, as he said this week, the choice is between those who believe the terror threat is real, and those who don't?
So you see, as Mr. Matthews sets up the discussion, the story is all about a beleaguered president trying to regain some of his popularity by capitalizing on a near-tragedy. Never mind, of course, the idea that some might view the story as an illustration of the need to remain vigilant in the face of an incredibly deadly foe. Never mind the notion that, politics aside, the threat to the nation is made very clear by the uncovered terrorist plot. Now let’s see Mr. Fineman’s response:
Mr. HOWARD FINEMAN (Newsweek Chief Political Correspondent): Well, that's their plan, to make it as stark and us-vs.-them contrast as they can. This election in the fall can be about three things. It can be about George Bush, it can be about the war in Iraq, or if the White House has its way it's going to be about the, quote, "war on terrorism" more generally, and they're going to try to make a bright, sharp line and say, `If you had any questions about the Patriot Act, if you want to redeploy troops away from the center theater in Iraq, if you — if you have any doubts at all about the willingness to call Islamic fascists what George Bush called them . . .
MATTHEWS: Where'd that come from, that phrase?
Mr. FINEMAN: That comes from two things. That comes from their desire to make this a clash of civilizations — I'm talking about the White House — even if there were a way out of it and the Democrats think there is. And it's about George Bush trying to identify himself with World War II, with the fight against Naziism, with a global clash. George Bush's answer to anything, and Karl Rove's answer to any political predicament is to make the stakes larger.
What a wonderful encapsulation of the nation’s chattering class! Here, Mr. Fineman makes it perfectly clear that the terrorism issue is, first and foremost, a tool for Republicans to use in elections in order to conceal their implicit unfitness for office. Neither he nor Mr. Matthews even entertains the idea that perhaps the liberal Democrats are fundamentally at a disadvantage on the terrorism issue because they are rightly viewed as weak on national security. After all, who expresses the most strident outrage when the President uses tools such as NSA surveillance to detect terrorists?
For the record, it is absolutely certain that Republicans in Congress face much trouble this election season because of their problems with governing. The Republicans could do poorly for many reasons, many of which are their own fault. But that is not the central point here. The central point is that the elite liberals in the media love to design the terms of national debate to place conservatives in a disadvantageous position. In fact, what is funny is that they often do not exactly plan it that way. They simply believe in the assumptions of the liberal worldview and shape the national dialogue accordingly. What is laughable is that differing views never seem to occur to them.
For example, look at how Mr. Matthews felt compelled to ask Mr. Fineman how the President could have conceived of such an outlandish notion as “Islamic fascists.” When confronted with this notion, the elite media culture says, “How antiquated and uncivilized to believe that fascistic forms of Islamic extremism are at the root of terrorism! In our enlightened and multicultural age, we must find the social roots that drive these young Muslim men. We no longer live in the world of Hitler and the Nazis, so fascist ideology could not possibly be the answer. Such unsophisticated thinking!”
This, of course, is despite the clear pronouncements of Islamic fascists to impose their religion through murder and the efforts of Islamic extremists around the world to destroy civilized societies. But the elite chattering class cannot be bothered with exploring the ideological nature of our enemy because it would distract attention from more important matters — like the possibility of hindering Republicans and conservatives.
Notice how Mr. Fineman couched the issue in terms of the President seeking to gain politically by likening the conflict with modern fascists to conflicts with the fascists of the past — as though such an idea was ridiculous on its face and we are not threatened by any fascist ideology, only a ragtag group of crazies. This is the implicit message, and that is why it is hard to take seriously liberal ruminations on the current threat.
All of the members of the panel more or less concurred with the postulates of Mr. Matthews and Mr. Fineman, and not one offered a unique perspective, certainly not one that might delve into the nature of the enemy. But that merely reflects the consensus of the elite liberal world: yes, there is a big threat, but conservatives are exaggerating it for political gain and misrepresenting the nature of the enemy. One has to wonder just how cocooned the elite media must make itself in order to believe their assumptions.
In the end, it is just that sort of insulation that makes the chattering class detached from the ideas of other Americans. The class simply lives in its own little community, its members talking amongst each other and expounding the same liberal assumptions about the world. Then they use these shared assumptions to force a consensus on the American people, a consensus of the liberal dogma. What they do not seem to realize is that mainstream America is not so wedded to their dogma as they believe.
The elite liberal barons of the mainstream media are viewed with increasing contempt by much of America, and with good reason. They bleat and whine about all things conservatives do and expect everyone else to join them in their disdain. The thing that’s so funny is that the barons don’t even realize that much of the country is not on the same page as they are. But that mindset is a part of the class which they comprise.
I’m not sure fascist IS the right word (simply being a murderous political regine doesn’t make one a fascist necessarily) as, politically and economically, the Islamic forms of government have little to do with Fascism.
I do, however, understand and agree with your point, and not being fascists does not make these people any less of a problem. I just hate ‘buzzwords’ (in itself a buzzword) like ‘Fascism’, ‘gay’, ‘conservative’, ‘liberal’ and ‘freedom’.
here are some good terms for alex: homphobic (gays are arrested and at times tortured and executed), barbaric (chopping heads off and homicide bombing count as barbaric), sexist (women in most muslim persian/arab countries don't get to vote, drive, travel, make rational modern decisions concerning their own, or their country's future, etc) and xenophopic (have a strange irrational desire to eradicate jews and all non muslims from the face of the earth) but in the meantime non muslims living in arab countries are discriminated against as well (cannot vote, are taxed at usary rates and cannot legally run a business and in some cases forced to wear ID tags.) How about Nazi Germany reincarnate alex?
Yes, Dean, you’re right. I agree with you. But all these things do not make a political system of government ‘Fascist’. Fascism is a political and economic ideology like Communism, and in this sense the word is ill-used. THAT’S why I hate hearing it all the time.
If all these things happened in a communist dictatorship, would you call the dictators ‘fascists’? I doubt it, but if you did it would be another example of the misuse of the term.
Just call them barbaric, xenophobic racist bigots. As far as I can see, all those terms are perfectly accurate descriptions.
Poor Mr. Kelly’s ideological worldview is no deeply rooted that he cannot see that he is guilty of the very myopia that he accuses the so called liberal media of possessing. Sadly, his need to critique the left supplants the real responsibility of conservatives, that is, to boldly critique itself, during this era when there exist unprecendented powers to truly implant a bold conservative agenda. Do we really serve this end by skewering moderate pundits when there is so much power in the hand of the right at this moment in time? Mr. Kelly, put your critical skills to some real test and give us a bold critique of your beloved right! Yet another sophomoric screed against television commentators (I imagine you hold Rush to different standard) is unoriginal, useless, and redundant, at best.
Jim, Your nonsequituer is a waste of everyone’s time. “La trahison des clercs” is a fact. Anyone who paid attention to 20th century history would know that. Read some Solzhenytsyn if you dare. The left is in the grip of Gramsci and his ilk, blaming the West, and large fractions of our population have bought the lies. The power you think the Right has now, is much less than you suggest. Look at what a minority of 40 Senators can do to legislation. It will take years to turn the US around, and the process is by no means certain.
did the muslim terrorists have a credible plot to blow up the airplanes or not? If they did then all the talk about political gains is stupid and subversive. Does Matthews believe the President had a hand in the plotting or not. It not he is a dreadful harpy to suggest his concern over it is politically motivated. by the way the term islamo-fascist was invented by Michael Savage. I”ll invent my own term: Islamurderers. and for Chris Matthews types: journostriches.
Jonathan,
Good use of the word “aristocrat”. Abraham Lincoln used the word “aristocracy” to describe the Democrats of his era. It is also attributed to him in a private correspondence, the following description of Democrats that seems equally applicable today, “These political fiends aren’t half sick enough yet, party malice and not public good consumes them entirely.”
Michael Savage’s description is right, “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”. That disorder is called “Functional Insanity”.
Liberals all appear normal in the ordinary course of human affairs, at least in eating, sleeping, paying bills and doing the other things all of us do (sex notwithstanding) (they are “Functional” in providing their basic human needs), except when it comes to cultural and political matters the defect in their combination of values/reasoning/judgment becomes perfectly clear. They elected Bill Clinton, a many very credibly accused of rape and who cannot even defend himself in a court of law by oral testimony, as everyone know he is a perjurer and habitual liar of the near first order. If character doesn’t matter, liberals proved it beyond the fondest hopes of conservatives (they are “Insane”).
Again, it’s “Functional Insantiy”. Even Jeffrey Dahmer appeared normal until his deeds were found out. Liberals, to some degree, are simply less murderous (partial birth abortion/abortion notwithstanding) and have a better diet.
Mark
Mark
P.S. I guess we conservatives will all have to “Eat Cake”.
Mark
What intrigues me most is that the conservatives are so willing to turn their backs on the incompetence and lies (you can call it “spin” if you are willing to accept it as a politically acceptable reality) of the Bush Administration. Does this have to be an either/or argument. It’s like my Republican friends who can only defend Bush by knocking Clinton. Let’s acknowledge the treat of terrorism and be real about it. Both the threat and the use of it for political gain are evil and hurtful to our society.
Savage did not coin the term “Islamofascist,” although he claims to. It was actually coined by historian Malise Ruthven in a 1990 article he wrote for The Independent of London. In it, Ruthven writes:
“Nevertheless there is what might be called a ”political problematic” affecting the Muslim world. In contrast to the heirs of some other non-Western traditions, including Hinduism, Shintoism and Buddhism, Islamic societies seem to have found it particularly hard to institutionalise divergences politically: authoritarian government, not to say ”Islamo-fascism”, is the rule rather than the exception from Morocco to Pakistan.”
So while Savage would like you to believe he created the term, that claim is just one among many lies ge regularly tells.
“What intrigues me most is that the conservatives are so willing to turn their backs on the incompetence and lies (you can call it “spin” if you are willing to accept it as a politically acceptable reality) of the Bush Administration. Does this have to be an either/or argument. It’s like my Republican friends who can only defend Bush by knocking Clinton. Let’s acknowledge the treat of terrorism and be real about it. Both the threat and the use of it for political gain are evil and hurtful to our society.”
Colin,
The truth is not that republicans are attacking Bill Clinton, that is old news. The democrats whom were scorned by Clinton’s assault, and rightly so, are still at a position of indignation about it and believe that Clinton and wife were not the scoundrals that Star and the others made proved them to be. “It’s the economy stupid.”, was their victory cry, Bill, Al and Hillary.
What makes democrats angry is that the encounter we are having now with the war waged upon us by the Islamics is one that was put off and appeased since the office of FDR. We who support Bush know that he has been the only one who has actually told the truth and sought to stop the Jihadists from extorting us. That may mean many of us will not see a “Bull Market” era again like we did in the 90′s. Those who worship, first, money and prosperity and believe that making it through lean times puts them in the same camps as the ignorant poor will devour all others around them. The democrats imbibe and birth this derision. They can’t face the crisis of our time because their faith is in “prosperity” and “liberation”. Lord willing, many will be shaken from this complacency and begin to see the dynamics of nations and the struggles behind them. “A house divided cannot stand.”
Nations rise and fall. Most crumble from within before a comparable foe overthrows them. Revival is our only hope, for those who believe. Spiritual awakening and salvation to those who have never been alive, spiritually. Barring this, we are only a
waste of space and should expect the fate of what our foe calls us,
“The Infidels”.
Their plot is to divide us from within. Anyone with intelligence should be able to see that.