The Left, the Media and Slander

I read an article by Michelle Malkin a couple of weeks ago, A Christian Business in the Left's Crosshairs. It's about how Chick-fil-A is being targeted by some lefties. I didn't think much of it at the time. It seemed as if it was just more of the same. Then, a friend of mine sent it to me today. As I reread it, I began to think.

This is a common tactic of the professional intolerance police and the perpetually offended of the left.

Of the left? Yes, of the left. While granting that it is theoretically possible for some “on the right” to use this tactic, I can’t recall any examples. If it has occurred, it was likely executed by someone masquerading as a “rightwing” ideologue in an attempt to discredit a group or a movement. Remember when lefties were attempting to infiltrate Tea Party gatherings? The right just doesn’t have anyone like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the Human Rights Campaign, etc. Let’s face it, the left has a monopoly on professional grievance-mongering.

So, what’s the tactic? The tactic is slander and here's how it's done.

The first two steps come in no particular order. Find a target and find something “offensive”. Notice that finding a target can come first. As this is not about legitimate grievances and their resolution, it’s perfectly acceptable to determine who you want to injure and then later figure out how it is that they’ve offended you. You can also be opportunistic when acquiring a target. Sometimes, a potential target can say or do something that is particularly easy to take offense at. Remember Don Imus? Lefties didn't have him in the crosshairs. He just said something that was too easy to exploit.

And the offense? It can be anything. It doesn't matter how small, insignificant, irrelevant or false. Candidates are anything that can be stretched, twisted or otherwise morphed from a phony offense into something that, to stupid people and people on the left, could conceivably resemble a legitimate offense. (Yes, I realize that was redundant). I once heard Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee pontificate that the label, "sergeant" as it had been applied to MSNBC talking head Ed Shultz, might be an ethnic slur.

Then, make a big deal out of the phony offense. The leftist media will happily publicize your charade, er… complaint. They’ll be happy to pick it up and begin to report as if it’s a legitimate story. In fact, the leftist media originate many of these incidents. And when I say leftist media, I’m not talking about the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post or MSNBC. I’m talking about NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, the New York Times, etc. I recall many of the talking heads somberly reporting on the “Macaca” controversy.

Now that you’ve obtained the support of the leftist media, begin to harangue the “offender” to apologize for the phony offense. Find weaklings who are ostensibly on the side of the “offender”. Get them to wax serious about the “strawman” and encourage them to call on the “offender” to apologize. This is something that RINO’s are especially good for. This step of the process is to lend legitimacy to an otherwise obviously illegitimate claim. “Hey, if John McCain is calling for them to apologize, then there must be something to the charge.” Often, the “offender” will try to diffuse the situation by attempting some generic apology, “I’m sorry if anyone was offended. I never intended to...”. This never diffuses the situation. It simply encourages the slanderers. Remember Trent Lott?

Begin to demand that the “offender” disavow all sorts of crazies. The purpose of this step isn’t to get the “offender” to moderate or to cease offending. No, this step is all about associating the “offender” with crazies. The person or group being slandered should never participate in this step. If the “offender” does disavow some crazy or group of crazies, the media can report it while shaking their heads and giving the impression that they just don’t believe it. And then, after reporting that the “offender” has disavowed some crazies, they can always go get the other side of the story. Sweet! "So-and-so says that the disavowal is insincere". I mean after all, they wouldn't want to report only the “offender's” side of the story would they? Who can forget the demands for the Tea Party to disavow racism and racist groups?

As the controversy develops, you can demand that the “offender” resign, get sensitivity training, make reparations payments or any of dozens of potential acts of supplication, humbly begging for forgiveness. If the “offender” succumbs to any of these demands, it will be perceived as an admission of guilt.

This tactic is not about settling grievances. It doesn’t seek to repair differences or clear up misunderstandings. It’s all about attempting to destroy those with whom you disagree by using any means necessary. Lies, deceit, slander... they’re the tools of the leftist's trade.

Civility anyone?

Where is Horatio Bunce?

While doing some office cleaning recently, I ran across a pamphlet that had found it's way into a pile of papers needing some organization. Coincidentally, a friend of mine had recently sent me an e-mail version of the pamphlet which I shared with some other friends. I found that the pamphlet's contents are available on the web. As internet content goes, it's a bit of a long read but, in my opinion, well worth it.

Sockdolager - A Tale of Davy Crockett

One of the friends with whom I shared the story lamented the current state of Congress with respect to the principles espoused in the pamphlet. I agreed. However, as I pondered the topic a bit more, I became more concerned about the state of modern Horatio Bunces. Granted, there's some overlap in that venn diagram... Congress and those who play the role of the conscience of Congress.

Where are today’s Bunces? Apparently, there aren’t many. If there are, they’re awfully quiet. I’ve hoped that the tea party might be a bit Buncian. It does seem clear that there’s a little more Bunce in the tea party than in either of the establishment parties. But when the rank and file tea party folks are polled, a great many seem to be looters just like the others. They just have a different set of priorities when it comes to how much should be looted, from whom it should be looted and to whom the loot should be dispensed.

There are those who fancy themselves a Bunce and those who the conservative intelligentsia attempt to pass off as a Bunce. Most fall incredibly short. I speak only of conservatives because seeking a Bunce among today’s liberal establishment would obviously be an hilarious exercise in futility.

Starting with the “establishment” or “moderate” republicans. They’re the ones who lament the co-opting of the “conservative” label. To think of them with principles such as Bunce’s is laughable. Michael “Bunce” Steele? “Horatio” Rudy Guliani? John McCain, Horatio Bunce of the Senate? I don’t think so. They themselves admit that they’re “pragmatic”. They like to “reach across the aisle”. They think of themselves as the rational ones. They eschew the “extreme right wing” of their party. No, we won’t find a Bunce there.

Then we have the “extreme right-wing”. I put that in quotes because as extreme goes, they’re pretty tame. These are ones who commendably speak with passion against things like Obamacare, stimulus and TARP. But, at the same time, they quail at the thought of rolling back entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. They say things like, “we owe it to our seniors” or “we made promises”. Excuse me? I made no promises. Is a promise to one person valid if it presupposes theft from another? No, you’re no Horatio Bunce if you’re willing to continue to looting current and future generations in order to pay a phony debt to those who saw fit to establish the entire looting enterprise in the first place.

I think it more likely that we might find a Bunce among the Libertarians. But, they’re constantly denigrated by the conservative establishment and even the “extreme right-wing” as “loonytarians” or worse. They need to overcome the preconception that they just want to smoke pot and make the world safe for child pornographers. An invalid preconception to be sure but one that the conservative establishment is all too willing to continue to feed.

Yes, a few Bunces would definitely do the country some good. I’m hopeful but, I’m not holding my breath.