Please see some of my responses inline below.
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 6:26
The liberal media is not a fantastic construct. The ethic for a career in news is to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicated." The liberality of the media is also not something with which I necessarily disagree, and I think it can be no other way. Notions of objectivity are nonsense, anyway, according to Luce. The ethic is simply misapplied, and blindly followed, by a media management come to power and influence during the Viet Nam and Watergate era. There are greater truths than those discovered by the media, and subtler influences at work in international relations than the media can follow. Media are blunt instruments, and should not be, as they have become, instruments of policy. Furthermore, I think you know the idea of a liberal media is not far-fetched, and are not being honest with me-- or yourself-- when you posit that it is.
I agree that in general ‘newsmen’ as it were tend to be liberal. What you posit however neglects to acknowledge the power that the media owners and editors wield. For who owns these news machines? I have to suggest generally they are owned by right-leaning, status quo believing folks. People who are, or are becoming, very comfortable with how things are trending as money flows into their pockets. As many studies as there are that say our media is liberal so too I am sure there are as many that say they are but a microphone and loudspeaker for the rich and powerful message.
To me, the reality is that this is such a commodity in a free, democratic society that it should not be trusted to corporations or profit centers. Like healthcare this should be a carefully studied and controlled public trust.
Of course you would disown the "liberal," label. I am aware of your postulates regarding the evil of "labels." Yet, labels, as I have said to you in the past, offer a shorthand to ideas, often complex. You know a "liberal," is a believer in the essential goodness and trustworthiness of men, and a believer in government programs supporting and correcting men when they are neither. The founders of this nation were less sanguine about the propensities of its citizens, and at the same time more confident in their individual abilities. The "liberal," consciousness is one which is suitable for the long-term future of man-at-peace, but is inappropriate at this time.
It is perhaps during these types of times, like in our depression era past, when ‘liberals’ are most needed?
Indeed, the "love of country," to which you refer can-- and must-- exist on both sides of the aisle, but it is expecting too much of human nature that the Democratic party, standard-bearers of what currently passes for "liberalism," in the United States, today, would be dispassionate and altruistic so recently after being turned out of the halls of power in the White House, the U.S. Congress, and the majority of state governorships after a half-century of uninterrupted influence, if not dominance. The turning, to which you so yearningly hope, will soon come to pass: when the superiority and some might say rabidity of unelected officials like Mr. Rove, and the hysteria and foolishness of elected officials like Sen. Durbin, will by necessity be tempered. American citizens like yourself will have become too smart for them. Let us hope one day soon the dead Darwin will have his way with Kansas-- then, I will begin to hope with you for the new Renaissance, here.
Of course, one day you will outgrow terms like "boogey man," and other sophomorisms, and become, yourself, more liberal and less strident in your criticisms; seeing that writers like Dr. Hanson are themselves no more immune to hyperbole than you and I, and Mr. Rove, and Sen. Durbin. We may disagree when you aver Dr. Hanson has said, "America is doing fine;" I believe what he said was that we are at war, with all of the messiness and hardship that entails.
I will grant you that he did not specifically say, ‘America is doing fine’ and will grant you your interpretation of the piece. Even under these war-like conditions (that could last 30 years of more as I understand it), I might offer that as citizens we can stand behind and love America and still offer areas where she can improve. In fact, I might offer that during these times we are more needed than ever to say, ‘I like what you are doing here and I think you could do more in this area (perhaps pro-active, positive outreach?)’ We especially need our educated columnists such as VDH to stand with us all in this regard. No one and no collective body is ever perfect or ever black and white. Life, war, does not work that way.
As a related aside, I notice this with sports writers as well. It is in this arena of course where stances are not political as such and one essentially can write with impunity. During these polarized times even sports writers are prone to writing, ‘Derek Jeter sucks and Torre needs to be fired’ one day and after a short 3 game winning streak write something to the tune of, ‘Derek Jeter should be MVP and Torre isn’t all that bad’ (you know that NY media, never giving the manager credit ;) Anyway, my point is with VDH or with these sports writing folks I might like to see moderation and investigative analysis as opposed to what we see now.
But, back to my previous point, it is these extreme pointed pieces that sell eh? And so we are stuck with the media we have bought.
Nathan, I agree with him that Islamic extremism has been given a pass-- as have so many of the ethical lapses that pass for freedom, which are merely vice. The Christian god and His precepts have been eliminated from the public schools, pornography has been exalted as free speech, and many of the virtues of hard work for money (capitalism), belief in an ascertainable right and wrong (the rule of law), and a social contract recognizable to all, have been ruined in the name of what in another age would be called libertinism, but now passes for liberalism. Who gave them that pass? Why, you and me. Every time we have smoked pot, looked at porn, not paid our taxes, not volunteered for community service, not tithed to a house of worship, we have reduced the foundations of law, morality, and faith that were the utterly unquestionable bedrock of civlization-- and yes, liberality-- when this nation was founded.
Yes, things have changed over time for better and worse. I think it is instructive however to note that supporters of porn as free speech may or may not be viewers of the same. In my case, I personally could care less if porn existed or not, but I would defend to the death others’ right to enjoy it if that is their thing. Just as if someone (actually we do) said that bungy jumping was illegal I hope they might say for me, but he enjoys it and I want to allow him that right. I suppose it is about true freedom in our day an age. It is of course idealistic to think that society could function with true freedom, but I might hope that we try our very best to achieve this for everyone.
In another day and age, 1692 or so, some weirder folks from Salem, Massachusetts could have used some of the understanding and permissibility and liberalism that we take for granted today.
This is not by way of saying that I give cold blooded killers a pass… I don’t think many others do either. I truly think what you see as a pass for Islamic extremism is more a train of thought along the lines of the serenity prayer. For it is these individuals, that would commit such unspeakable acts, that we cannot change as such, but it is we who we can control.
My belief is that Dr. Hanson is, in fact, saying America can do better. He is saying it by indicating, like the letters of fire Belshazzar wrote on a wall, that it is the responsibilty of us all to forego the easy bromides of liberal politicians in love with a status quo ante the time for the tolerance of which has passed, and face the new battles facing us, the threats to the beacon of freedom our forefathers lit. For make no mistake, in the annals of history, the United States of America, despite her genocide against Native Americans, her enslavement of Negroes, her Comstocks and her McCarthys, remains the last best hope for mankind.
Agreed. I hope that in the annuals of history we remain so with a focus on our environment, ‘lesser’ species, confused co-habitants and a series of ideas (coupled with action) that remain the very best in the world. And that we move away from our violent history - promoting our ideas and actions with a type of positive re-enforcement as opposed to hammer like punishment (unless, truly necessary).
Like the Adams's and the Kennedys and the Roosevelts before them, the Bushes (the "dynasty," to which-- I suppose-- you have rather carelessly referred), will go to dust, but the idea of America will endure. To my mind, the policies of the present administration resemble those of the Kennedy administration of the early 1960s a great deal, and reflect not only the will of the people, but I believe some-- not all-- but some of the best classical American ideals. My belief is that Americans' genius for compromise will eventually satisfy even the civic ambitions of one as complicated as you, and the harsh polarities which form the limits of, for instance, our correspondence, will draw closer..
Again, I would try and give Hanson more slack than you have, and not bullheadedly parse his material for that which most infuriates you, but set aside your preconceptions and discover the many ways in which his values concur with yours. From reading you both, it is my belief, however it may at present annoy you, that those concurrences are manifest. From the improvement I see in the incisiveness of your analysis, and the increased rigor of your prose, and the thinking behind it, I see, even if you may not, you are discovering this for yourself. I admire your most recent correspondence more than I ever have. Sorry I was too occupied today to offer a better rejoinder until now. Thank-you for the effort of your writing to me, and the increased quality of it.
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 6:26
The liberal media is not a fantastic construct. The ethic for a career in news is to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicated." The liberality of the media is also not something with which I necessarily disagree, and I think it can be no other way. Notions of objectivity are nonsense, anyway, according to Luce. The ethic is simply misapplied, and blindly followed, by a media management come to power and influence during the Viet Nam and Watergate era. There are greater truths than those discovered by the media, and subtler influences at work in international relations than the media can follow. Media are blunt instruments, and should not be, as they have become, instruments of policy. Furthermore, I think you know the idea of a liberal media is not far-fetched, and are not being honest with me-- or yourself-- when you posit that it is.
I agree that in general ‘newsmen’ as it were tend to be liberal. What you posit however neglects to acknowledge the power that the media owners and editors wield. For who owns these news machines? I have to suggest generally they are owned by right-leaning, status quo believing folks. People who are, or are becoming, very comfortable with how things are trending as money flows into their pockets. As many studies as there are that say our media is liberal so too I am sure there are as many that say they are but a microphone and loudspeaker for the rich and powerful message.
To me, the reality is that this is such a commodity in a free, democratic society that it should not be trusted to corporations or profit centers. Like healthcare this should be a carefully studied and controlled public trust.
Of course you would disown the "liberal," label. I am aware of your postulates regarding the evil of "labels." Yet, labels, as I have said to you in the past, offer a shorthand to ideas, often complex. You know a "liberal," is a believer in the essential goodness and trustworthiness of men, and a believer in government programs supporting and correcting men when they are neither. The founders of this nation were less sanguine about the propensities of its citizens, and at the same time more confident in their individual abilities. The "liberal," consciousness is one which is suitable for the long-term future of man-at-peace, but is inappropriate at this time.
It is perhaps during these types of times, like in our depression era past, when ‘liberals’ are most needed?
Indeed, the "love of country," to which you refer can-- and must-- exist on both sides of the aisle, but it is expecting too much of human nature that the Democratic party, standard-bearers of what currently passes for "liberalism," in the United States, today, would be dispassionate and altruistic so recently after being turned out of the halls of power in the White House, the U.S. Congress, and the majority of state governorships after a half-century of uninterrupted influence, if not dominance. The turning, to which you so yearningly hope, will soon come to pass: when the superiority and some might say rabidity of unelected officials like Mr. Rove, and the hysteria and foolishness of elected officials like Sen. Durbin, will by necessity be tempered. American citizens like yourself will have become too smart for them. Let us hope one day soon the dead Darwin will have his way with Kansas-- then, I will begin to hope with you for the new Renaissance, here.
Of course, one day you will outgrow terms like "boogey man," and other sophomorisms, and become, yourself, more liberal and less strident in your criticisms; seeing that writers like Dr. Hanson are themselves no more immune to hyperbole than you and I, and Mr. Rove, and Sen. Durbin. We may disagree when you aver Dr. Hanson has said, "America is doing fine;" I believe what he said was that we are at war, with all of the messiness and hardship that entails.
I will grant you that he did not specifically say, ‘America is doing fine’ and will grant you your interpretation of the piece. Even under these war-like conditions (that could last 30 years of more as I understand it), I might offer that as citizens we can stand behind and love America and still offer areas where she can improve. In fact, I might offer that during these times we are more needed than ever to say, ‘I like what you are doing here and I think you could do more in this area (perhaps pro-active, positive outreach?)’ We especially need our educated columnists such as VDH to stand with us all in this regard. No one and no collective body is ever perfect or ever black and white. Life, war, does not work that way.
As a related aside, I notice this with sports writers as well. It is in this arena of course where stances are not political as such and one essentially can write with impunity. During these polarized times even sports writers are prone to writing, ‘Derek Jeter sucks and Torre needs to be fired’ one day and after a short 3 game winning streak write something to the tune of, ‘Derek Jeter should be MVP and Torre isn’t all that bad’ (you know that NY media, never giving the manager credit ;) Anyway, my point is with VDH or with these sports writing folks I might like to see moderation and investigative analysis as opposed to what we see now.
But, back to my previous point, it is these extreme pointed pieces that sell eh? And so we are stuck with the media we have bought.
Nathan, I agree with him that Islamic extremism has been given a pass-- as have so many of the ethical lapses that pass for freedom, which are merely vice. The Christian god and His precepts have been eliminated from the public schools, pornography has been exalted as free speech, and many of the virtues of hard work for money (capitalism), belief in an ascertainable right and wrong (the rule of law), and a social contract recognizable to all, have been ruined in the name of what in another age would be called libertinism, but now passes for liberalism. Who gave them that pass? Why, you and me. Every time we have smoked pot, looked at porn, not paid our taxes, not volunteered for community service, not tithed to a house of worship, we have reduced the foundations of law, morality, and faith that were the utterly unquestionable bedrock of civlization-- and yes, liberality-- when this nation was founded.
Yes, things have changed over time for better and worse. I think it is instructive however to note that supporters of porn as free speech may or may not be viewers of the same. In my case, I personally could care less if porn existed or not, but I would defend to the death others’ right to enjoy it if that is their thing. Just as if someone (actually we do) said that bungy jumping was illegal I hope they might say for me, but he enjoys it and I want to allow him that right. I suppose it is about true freedom in our day an age. It is of course idealistic to think that society could function with true freedom, but I might hope that we try our very best to achieve this for everyone.
In another day and age, 1692 or so, some weirder folks from Salem, Massachusetts could have used some of the understanding and permissibility and liberalism that we take for granted today.
This is not by way of saying that I give cold blooded killers a pass… I don’t think many others do either. I truly think what you see as a pass for Islamic extremism is more a train of thought along the lines of the serenity prayer. For it is these individuals, that would commit such unspeakable acts, that we cannot change as such, but it is we who we can control.
My belief is that Dr. Hanson is, in fact, saying America can do better. He is saying it by indicating, like the letters of fire Belshazzar wrote on a wall, that it is the responsibilty of us all to forego the easy bromides of liberal politicians in love with a status quo ante the time for the tolerance of which has passed, and face the new battles facing us, the threats to the beacon of freedom our forefathers lit. For make no mistake, in the annals of history, the United States of America, despite her genocide against Native Americans, her enslavement of Negroes, her Comstocks and her McCarthys, remains the last best hope for mankind.
Agreed. I hope that in the annuals of history we remain so with a focus on our environment, ‘lesser’ species, confused co-habitants and a series of ideas (coupled with action) that remain the very best in the world. And that we move away from our violent history - promoting our ideas and actions with a type of positive re-enforcement as opposed to hammer like punishment (unless, truly necessary).
Like the Adams's and the Kennedys and the Roosevelts before them, the Bushes (the "dynasty," to which-- I suppose-- you have rather carelessly referred), will go to dust, but the idea of America will endure. To my mind, the policies of the present administration resemble those of the Kennedy administration of the early 1960s a great deal, and reflect not only the will of the people, but I believe some-- not all-- but some of the best classical American ideals. My belief is that Americans' genius for compromise will eventually satisfy even the civic ambitions of one as complicated as you, and the harsh polarities which form the limits of, for instance, our correspondence, will draw closer..
Again, I would try and give Hanson more slack than you have, and not bullheadedly parse his material for that which most infuriates you, but set aside your preconceptions and discover the many ways in which his values concur with yours. From reading you both, it is my belief, however it may at present annoy you, that those concurrences are manifest. From the improvement I see in the incisiveness of your analysis, and the increased rigor of your prose, and the thinking behind it, I see, even if you may not, you are discovering this for yourself. I admire your most recent correspondence more than I ever have. Sorry I was too occupied today to offer a better rejoinder until now. Thank-you for the effort of your writing to me, and the increased quality of it.
