The link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1673265,00.html
Michael Kinsley is one of my new favorite figures in “journalism.” As his wikipedia entry informs us, he hosted Crossfire opposite Path Buchanan. This is already pretty hilarious, because many people on the left consider Pat Buchanan to be slightly more conservative and authoritarian than Hitler, so casting somebody as a balance to him would suggest that person is about as liberal as you can possibly be. And that's Michael Kinsley. But what makes it particularly hilarious is that he's given editorials in Time magazine, given Slate to direct, etc. etc. etc.
Can you imagine a major publication giving Pat Buchanan that sort of power?
No, his stuff gets printed in The American Conservative. I AM an American conservative and I've never heard of it. Oh, and Yahoo! news. So that gives you an idea of how shit works. If you're a liberal, expect to get an editorial page in Time magazine, which we're all told is a wonderful, important publication. If you're a conservative, well, go get a blog.
But enough backstory on Kinsley. Today what he's doing is working as a Democrat operative in the media. He's forming public opinion in a way he thinks is most favorable to the Democrats. Now, as Hussain points out, he's not a knee-jerk apologist, but as I point out to Hussain, that doesn't matter. He's still a Democrat. He still writes everything from the perspective of “here's one thing we're doing wrong, fellow Democrats, let's fix that and we'll take over!”
So I enjoy reading his articles, because they fit nicely into the new genre of editorials I'm following lately, which is sorta the “DNC Combat Engineering Corps” of the MSM. They head in before the battle to prepare the field for their comrades, making things as favorable and defensible as possible. They drive their bulldozers back and forth over the minds of Americans, and put some nice gun positions, tank berms, etc. etc.
They camoflauge their earth movers by pretending they're just informing and commenting on a recent trend, but what they're really doing is making sure that before anybody gets too far ahead and starts understanding new concepts on their own terms, they're instead given the correct, left leaning view of the phenomenon.
It's not suprising, in these days of bipartisan government incomepetence and contemptibility, that focus groups and polling agencies are noting a rise in the significance of libertarianism. See, libertarianism is the value system that most Americans (I've heard 60%) actually subscribe to, but they rarely get to vote for, since Republicans will mostly only pay lip service to it, and Democrats are the polar opposite of it.
But it's a popular idea with Americans, so Mr. Kinsley needs to get out there and go to work on it. As he does in all his articles, he intersperses some nicely slanted commentary to remind the readers who is really likeable, and who isn't.
“Democrats treasure civil liberties, whereas Republicans are more tolerant of government censorship to protect children from pornography, or of wiretapping to catch a criminal, or of torture in the war against terrorism.”
Democrats are unflinchingly committed to your personal freedoms, whereas Republicans aren't so much. Maybe for good reason, but probably not, right? Right.
Wrong. Democrats love to control what people say and do when it comes to their sacred cows. They work to ban “hatespeech,” and their agents and operatives ceaselessly attack those who aren't sensitive enough to gays, minorities, etc. etc. They long for the return of the “fairness doctrine,” a far more transparent and deliberate attack on free speech than anything contemplated by modern Republicans. They're happy to impose laws that control our right to keep and bear arms, they've steadily whittled it away over time. And that's the 2nd Amendment. Not the 29th. Not some diddly state law. It's the Bill of Rights.
These guys treasure my civil liberties Mike? Fuck you they do.
Why is Mike saying this? He's trying to lay the groundwork for the idea that libertarians will find a nicer home in the Democrat party than the Republican party. Libertarians typically associate with Republicans, thanks to the Republican fancy for smaller government. Mike knows this. It's the open exposed flank of the Democrats. He's building berms for his party to hide behind, when their contempt for personal freedom is exposed.
The simple answer is that “Democrats are for Big Government; Republicans are against it.” But the more “nuanced” answer is that you should vote Democrat.
“Republicans also consider themselves more concerned about the moral tone of the country, and they are more disposed toward using the government in trying to improve it.”
Hey, even Republicans admit they're more of the moral police, right? Right? Again, you're full of shit Mike. Some people think homosexuality is immoral. Some people think hating homsexuality is immoral. Then they argue. Both sides are trying to impose their own morality. It's just that Republicans tend to refer to it as “morality” and the left uses its own version of the same, something like “compassion” or “conscience” or just “the truth.”
See, I actually AM a libertarian. I lean more “Republican conservative” than some libertarians, but that's where I'm at fundamentally. And when you're a libertarian, you're not about gay people. You're about leaving people alone. So if two people want to be gay with each other, who gives a shit? And if some guy wants to yell about how awful fags are, again, who gives a shit? Libertarianism isn't about supporting freedoms that liberals like. It's about leaving people the fuck alone.
But Mike is a liberal, and the only freedoms he's even aware of are the ones he cares about.
Liberals can't see any viewpoint by their own. They think Republicans are attacking their freedoms. Last time I checked, you could still get a legal abortion in this country. Last time I checked, there's been no federal ban on gay marriage, and instead a slow march towards it. It's typical liberal perspective at work here. Liberals are never forced to hear conservative views. They're never forced to live in a conservative media bubble. They're never forced to take stock of all the issues they got their way, or imagine living for decades under policy that is not as they desire. To them, nothing short of total compliance with their desires is “fair.” The very idea that gay marriage might be banned is an assault on them, as far as they're concerned.
The Christian right has watched abortion go on legally since 1973. That's 34 years. And, in their eyes, it's millions of innocent lives lost.
The American left has watched the war in Iraq go on for four years, and they're out of their fucking minds with it.
“Many people feel that neither party offers a coherent set of principles that they can agree with. For them, the choice is whether you believe in Big Government or you don't. And if you don't, you call yourself a libertarian.”
Mike says: Hey, libertarian, I'm talking to you. I know you're frustrated with your government. I feel you. Now, read on, and see my objective examination of your options.
“And what is the opposite of libertarianism? Libertarians would say fascism. But in the American political context, it is something infinitely milder that calls itself communitarianism.”
Mike is a true battlefield engineer. He sees how the fight will evolve, he knows the weaknesses of his allies, and he's building defenses. See, the word that Mike is looking for, and pretending not to see, is “socialism.” The opposite of libertarianism in American politics is socialism. It's not “communitariansm.” It doesn't call itself that. It calls itself “progressive” or “open-minded” or some other positive term that doesn't admit that it's actually socialism, which, even with a head full of bulldozers, Americans know is a bad thing.
The word “socialism“ doesn't appear ONCE in the entire article. You'd think the political system espoused by half of our political leaders would at least get a mention, wouldn't you? Of course not. Mike knows that word is poison for his Democrats.
It's a two pronged assault. He's coming in from one side, and if the target evades that attack, he'll pin them in with the the other. "If you consider yourself a libertarian, you're a Democrat! And also, if you don't buy that, and see that Democrats are the exact opposite of you, well, that's a harmless thing called socialism! No! I mean socialtasticness! Yeah! Vote Hillary!"
“And yet Republicans have a clearer vision of what constitutes a good society and a well-run planet and are quicker to try to impose this vision on the rest of us.”
First prong. A lie, but still an effective attack, since the DNC/MSM knows nobody will ever be given a voice to challenge it.
“Very few Democrats self-identify as libertarians, but they are in fact much more likely to have a live-and-let-live attitude toward the lesbian couple next door or the Islamofascist dictator halfway around the world.”
Yeah? And how live-and-let-live do they feel about the Christian fundamentalist next door? How live-and-let-live do they feel about the guy driving the gas guzzling Hummer? How live-and-let-live do they feel about people who talk bad about gays, minorities or socialist dictators in South America? Oh, wait, I mean socialistastic...
He's hammering the point. Democrats don't want to control you, libertarian! Never mind that they want to shut down the radio stations you listen to. Never mind that they want to take your guns away. Never mind that they want near total control over every aspect of your life. They're ok with the big important freedoms like guys fucking in the ass, and the Taliban. That's right up your alley, right? Right?
No, Mike. Not at all. Good luck with those berms, buddy. You may know how to plan a battle, but with the people you've got behind you, I don't think there's anything you can do.