Sarah Palin’s relentless tsunami of criticism resembles nothing other than simple playground bullying. The colossal, genuine vapidity of the “mainstream media” in ginning up predictably lame attacks upon Palin is like a scene from Voyage of the Damned. The elites assemble into a menagerie of rabid beasts, like a stable of bleating, cawing, mewling, and braying critters blindly belching up hateful anti-Palin bromides. This illiterate choir presents a tale, told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Can we be honest for a moment? Palin is loathed for what she represents, not for being dumb. Her “stupidity” is simply a shorthand rejection of her unacceptable political ideas. This became obvious when detractors were unable to provide meaningful examples of how she lacks intelligence. Instead, her critics simply repeat the mantra: “Palin is an idiot,” etc, ad nauseum. In other words, the Palin attack is pressed forward using history’s oldest and most discredited method of debate, the ad hominem, aka personal insult. This essay examines this phenomenon and also considers the banality of liberalism.
What causes the emotionally overwrought and laughably illiterate anti-Palin movement? It is the result of an exclusive media-produced event, directed by the upper echelons of the democrat establishment. It was launched for the sake of survival. Because, if Conservatives were allowed to proffer a virtuous, smart and effective female candidate for office—one which combined the best ideals of feminism and family life—then who would then need liberals and democrats?
Liberals rent out whatever subgroup they can persuade to help them amalgamate power. They entice special interest groups to enter their camp, then dispose of them like used toilet paper. For example, only liberals care about African Americans, correct? It’s just a coincidence out-of-wedlock births now account for over 70% of Black newborns since welfare was established. Again, liberals “love and protect” women, right? This is symbolized by safeguarding abortion, as we all know. So, it must be a meaningless detail that abortion eliminates half a million female fetal humans a year.
Liberals claim the right to attack Palin because such a stupid woman must be blockaded from public office. After all, only a moron like Palin could beat a sitting governor in her first statewide primary, and then a former governor in the general election. And the fact Sarah organized the largest private building project in North American history—the TransCanada Pipeline—is of course, blind luck.
But seriously—below the surface, in the seamy American leftist underbelly, the anti-Palin sentiments are driven by a hatred of real conservatism, wholesale opposition to Christianity, and a surprisingly virulent, anti-modern loathing of real women in public life.
For example, other than the emotional statement that “Palin is an idiot,” what proof is offered for her incompetence? The seething opposition to her is self-contained and utterly circular, a perfect tautology. In other words, we know Sarah is an imbecile because smart, well-informed people have already established her cretinism as one of the chief laws of the universe.
The massive campaign of Palin disrespect has achieved such cachet, even people nominally considered conservative, like the entire Bush family and Joey Scarborough, have backhanded Palin. As the saying goes—With friends like these, who needs enemas?!!
Modern liberalism is a movement once simply referred to as socialism. Since socialism is objectively seen by reasonable people as a bad idea, socialists had to steal the label from what had been the most potent set of political ideas ever collected—Classical Liberalism, ie political freedom of conscience.
But modern liberalism, aka socialism, is a rotting house built upon a decaying foundation in the midst of a hurricane. The basic premises of modern liberalism are found in the bilious writings of Karl Marx and other socialist thinkers. On one level, socialism fails because it presumes no God exists, and therefore only humanism is correct. The only problem with this is—unlike the Bible—there is no single standard for atheistic thinking. Therefore, there will always be contradictions in principles and actions.
Further, there is no set of ideas which is both unique to modern liberalism and demonstrably true. For example, the Welfare State is a parasitic entity destined to consume itself. Or, consider socialistic economics versus capitalism. The former cannot exist without government mandate and punishment. Further, erection of this idea exterminates human freedoms, since this emanates from right to private property. And when public policy is premised on the notion human nature does not exist, chaos results.
Instead of being allowed to play out in a healthy manner, disagreements between conservatism and socialism are blocked by the red herring of personal attacks upon key players like Palin.
Thomas Glovich describes typical decision-making in How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. Glovich explains people often end up subscribing to beliefs which offer no credible basis. Several factors lead to such unfounded convictions. The first is the natural tendency to seek support for what you would like to be true. The second is what is known as Confirmation Bias, or the selective use of only data which supports your already formed convictions. One could postulate this is what drives most anti-Palin rhetoric, even by such right luminaries as George Will, who hilariously claimed it a set fact Palin could not be trusted with nuclear decision-making. Such biased thinking also causes progressives to ignore mountains of evidence proving liberalism is mistaken and Barack a ninny.
Since socialism is not an intuitive movement of common sense, their menu of political positions must be handed down by fiat. Therefore, liberals and other socialists are much more likely to participate in unthinking movements or accept objectionable propositions without serious reflection—such as the notion America is an evil place. Or when the Eugenics movement was touted by various Marxists, Darwinists, communists, and even Nazis, led by socialist celebrities like George Bernard Shaw. Consider the wholehearted celebration of Political Correctness representing the illogical embrace of inconsistent beliefs whose only purpose is to upend our conservative Western social order to institute eventual Marxism.
Confirmation Bias is the tendency to look for proof that substantiates your beliefs and filter out the rest. Says the Skeptics Dictionary:
Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one’s beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one’s beliefs. This tendency to give more attention and weight to data that support our beliefs than we do to contrary data is especially pernicious when our beliefs are little more than prejudices. Numerous studies have demonstrated that people generally give an excessive amount of value to confirmatory information, that is, to positive or supportive data.
America would be greatly enriched if our most liberal brethren would stop distracting by demagoguery and misrepresentation. Specifically, instead of claiming Sarah Palin is a mindless numbskull, why can’t we simply outline her conservative ideas and policies versus Obama’s leftism, and have an actual debate? Apparently, because liberals cannot take the risk of losing such an important argument.
But if we put Palin against Obama, who in their right mind can claim Barack would come out ahead? For example—where are the policy decisions proving his genius? Or how about even a few common sense ideas or decisions? Even a little good economic news would be welcome change. But you knew he was in political peril when his killing of Osama bin Laden was immediately turned into his next campaign centerpiece, and only excuse to run for reelection.
Philosopher John Locke wrote in his Second Treatise on Government:
For where is the man that has incontestable evidence of the truth of all that he holds, or of the falsehood of all he condemns, or can say that he has examined to the bottom all his own, or other men’s, opinions? The necessity of believing without knowledge, nay often upon very slight grounds, in this fleeting state of action and blindness we are in, should make us more busy and careful to inform ourselves than constrain others.
We live in times of rank ignorance. Progressive anti-scientific thinkers boast of flawless hypothesis testing—like for Global Warming. Those of illogical mental habits claim great rigor, as when they claim Keynesian “deficit spending” works—just like the tooth fairy! And supposed free-thinkers are typically ideological slaves, like all of Palin’s “fair-minded” critics.
Yet, like the state religions of ancient Rome—liberal beliefs are both highly self-regarded and hilariously deficient. In fact, we might as well cut open pigeons and read their entrails to decide future policy than put any more faith in the failed socialist religion of liberalism. And all the Sarah bashing in the world cannot change that inevitable conclusion.
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico. Kelly is now host of a daily, Monday to Friday talk show at AM KOBE called AM Las Cruces w/Kelly O’Connell
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement