The government of “What difference does it make?”

When we look at how our government has responded to the night of September 11 in Benghazi, Libya, we see there are truly no standards any more.

Because it’s liberals . They’ve never had standards, they just have been successful enough in fooling many of us that they do.

The filibuster is good, no it’s bad, no it’s good again and a hallmark of Democracy–now bad again. Jack Cashill’s recent post at American Thinker ends with what must be his remaining gullibility about the press values of Watergate. But they were deposing a Republican president. They didn’t have standards, they had an opportunity.

Think of Rob Reiner’s statement as All in the Family‘s Michael Stivic “I happen to love the Constitution” or Amy Madigan’s “who wants to spit on the Constitution?” in Field of Dreams. While they were making gains by the Constitution, they loved the limitation that the Constitution put on authority and they framed the symbol of the Constitution to be the right for them to do what they wanted to do–they loved that symbol, just 20-40 years later, a 200-year old document expired. They don’t like it so much. If it stops them from doing what they want to do, then it’s not so good.

My evolving understanding about the left is that it’s all about power, but power passed through the production of ad campaign. They sell themselves on the universals that they sell you. That’s what makes a good salesman; they sell themselves first. The emotionalism of liberalism is only about the pitch or sale and the slogan, and then wielding that slogan as if it came from the mouth of God.

It’s like McLuhan’s “The medium is the message”. The value is the movement, the culture is the movement. The movement creates the cocoon that sweeps them along. It’s a type of politics that in order to use the media to its furthest extent has evolved and formed a symbiosis with the media’s own brand of propagating itself. “What difference does it make?” is a great emotional moment, a great symbol, rallying point, so that the liberal/progressive can shut the rest of the world out. “She kicked teabag a$$” because she defiantly and stridently made a moral insinuation as an answer to a question about how could they ever have come to the conclusion they did. As that emotion solidifies into conviction, they have the feedback they need to continue their momentum.

The medium is the message is the movement. They need friction points to push off on and continue momentum, they sound like “universals and standards” but they are not, they never were.

Axeman on January 24, 2013 at 5:28 PM