Liberal Dominance
Other than on talk radio, liberalism dominates most aspects of our culture, such as the news and entertainment media and academia. This domination gives liberals five huge advantages that allow them to perpetuate their dominance even though the policies that they support have been demonstrated time and time again to have failed, while conservative policies have been show to have worked.
The first and most obvious is simply their ability to filter and control what people hear. As I heard a Democratic Senator say shortly after the 2000 elections, the problem with Fox News was that they let the Republicans “get their message out.”
Similar to this is the ability to shape perceptions. The view presented of most Republican leaders is that they are either out of touch, dumb, heartless, corrupt, or some combination of the above. Ronald Regan was a dumb actor who was reading his lines. George Bush 41 was out of touch. Dan Quayle was dumb. Newt Gingrich was heartless, and the current president is just a dumb cowboy. That these perceptions are untrue does not seem to matter. The current president, for example, is not only a reader, but a serious one at that, going through over 100 books a year, and with such depth, as to impress at least one author with his thoughtful analysis of the author’s book. One wonders just how many books those critical of Bush have read in the last year? But such facts are irrelevant, and the perception left by the media is that Bush is just a dumb cowboy.
In addition to the ability to slant the debate, and shape perception, the liberal dominance also allows them to effectively rewrite history, at least to some extent, even recent history. This is because memories get hazy with the passage of time, and eventually the only thing most “remember” is the liberal view that is repeated over and over.
For example, many people remember how the anti-war movement forced us out of Vietnam and the pictures of the last helicopter lifting off from our embassy. What they don’t remember is that Nixon negotiated a peace agreement 1972 that ended the war, removed our troops and brought home our PO; this in 1973. It was only later, that the anti-war movement in Congress, ensured our defeat of South Vietnam, by among other things drastically cutting the aid we had promised. So in reality the antiwar movement did not end the war, as the war was already over, they did ensure that the peace became a defeat.
Another example would be the conformation of Clarence Thomas. In polls taken immediately following a debate that was far too controversial for the liberal media to control, the majority of the American people believed Thomas, and for good reason, as there were simply too many holes in the charges against him. But in the years since the confirmation, the media has kept at it and as memories faded, and the assaults on Thomas continued, they slowly reversed public opinion.
The last two benefits of the liberal dominance come from their control of academia. The first and clearest is that it provides a source of “experts” who can be counted on to make the case for liberalism, or to counter the argument of conservatives. Given the liberal dominance of the news media, these liberal “experts” are often presented as objective and unbiased.
Finally academia can be counted upon to provide a steady stream of new studies to support the claims of liberals. This is extremely important as the newer studies are always given precedence over older studies. Thus it does not matter, how much of liberalism is refuted, for liberalism is an ever moving target. Once DDT was the big problem requiring government action; by the time it had been refuted, it had already been replaced by a new scare overpopulation. Before overpopulation could be refuted, it was replaced by global cooling, before global cooling could be refuted, it was global warming. This concept of a moving target occurs even within these large debates. Most of the earlier studies warning of Global warming have long since called into serious question or even refuted. But no matter there is a steady stream of new studies to bolster the case.
To make matters worse it is not limited to a single issue, but the same tactics are used on a whole range of topics from global warming, anti-smoking, schools, health care, the economy, virtually everything liberals are interested in. All used new studies to claim there is a crisis which only government can solve. By the time the studies are analyzed and the problems pointed out, it no longer matters, because more recent studies will have “confirm” the crisis or raised some new crisis requiring government intervention.
In short the failures, mistakes, and errors of liberals are never really examined. In fact the successes of conservatives are often attributed to liberals. For example, if you look at the economic data, it is pretty clear that Clinton inherited from Bush 41 a growing economy which stagnated when Clinton increased taxes. Then when the Republican won control of Congress in 1994 and push through tax cuts, the economy took off for the remained of the decade, allowing to Republicans to push through a balanced budget over Clintons objections. Yet this is now presented in the media, as Clinton inherited failing economy from Bush 41 and by raising taxes, caused the economic boom of 1990s and balanced the budget.
Given their ability to filter information, shape perceptions, rewrite history, combined with their liberal experts, and the constant source of supporting studies, it is a wonder that conservatives ever win. But they do. And as the importance of alternative media grows, the effectiveness of the liberal dominance will decline until like the old Soviet Union, it will implode. And like the Soviet Union, that implosion may happen much quicker and sooner than anyone expects.
