It's The Message, Not The Messenger
What do you do when the position you’ve taken on a particular issue becomes the subject of attacks from “the other side” for which you’ve got no defense? It seems that, more and more, for the left the answer is to simply try to shut “the other side” up.
Symbolically, this “tactic” was manifested during the president’s State of the Union Address by the gathering of the moonbat left, led by Cindy Sheehan’s example, outside the capitol, at which they banged pots, pans, drums, and whatever else they could find to try to “drown out” President Bush’s message in the House Chamber.
But what was symbolized that night has obviously become a very real strategy for many who have no other way to respond to Republican positions. And just as the president’s speech that night kicked off a campaign of sorts for him to push the agenda he had just laid out for the year, it seems that the night also kicked off the left’s campaign for their own agenda laid out that night – to silence anyone who dares to hold a position contrary to their own. Two recent developments certainly seem to bear this out.
The first involves an Illinois newspaper’s refusal to run advertisements produced by a pro-life group in opposition to abortion. The reason given by the paper is that the images in the ads are “too graphic.”
The images in question? Sonograms. Those pictures taken of the unborn child inside the womb. Like the ones many expectant parents keep on their desks or refrigerators to show to friends. Like the ones featured recently in a major company’s television ad campaign showing technological breakthroughs they have produced.
The second has to do with television advertisements produced in support of the war in Iraq. These ads feature servicemen, as well as family members of servicemen lost in the war, speaking of the need to continue the job that has been started and take note of the good things being done in the war-torn nation. The reason at least one Minnesota television station has given for rejecting them is that they criticize the mainstream media. And goodness knows how little tolerance members of sage institutions like the mainstream media, or United States Senate incumbents, have for criticism.
Both episodes feature criticism, or at least alternative points of view, that is very difficult for the left to respond to. In the first case, the difficulty is the uphill battle they face against logic in their continued refusal to acknowledge that what’s in the womb is human life, as born out by technologies that allow people to see more clearly than ever what actually is conceived in the womb.
In the second, the difficulty comes from having to support a position that runs contrary to a group of people who are, by and large, held in very high esteem by the American public – members of America’s military. Needless to say, it’s no small task for someone to argue the point that the war is a disaster from which America must extricate itself quickly while those who have actually been on the ground in Iraq say just the opposite.
In such a position, what can one do other than hope that those whom you oppose will stop talking? In this case, apparently they can actively seek to silence those voices themselves. Witness the refusal of media outlets, no friends of Republicans or conservatives in general, to publish or air the ads in question.
And it’s grown beyond just an issue with liberal-friendly media outlets. Both of these episodes have been jumped on by political organizations as well. In the Illinois newspaper fight, an official with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has gone on record as saying that “the Right to Life ads are intended to inflame public opinion and create shame and fear about abortion.” In Minnesota, the state Democrat party has weighed in against the military ads, calling them “un-American, untruthful and a lie,” as well as noting the tragedy over the fact that “our brave men and women are being used in this type of propaganda.”
Hearing these arguments, one can’t be faulted if he wonders if similar indignation would be expressed by these leftists had they been able to weigh in against those that “inflamed public opinion” against slavery in the nineteenth century, or against civil rights inequities in the twentieth. And it would be no great surprise if one were to wonder why no similar outrage has been expressed over the use of Ms. Sheehan’s story for “propaganda.”
Of course, it’s not hard to see why those of a liberal persuasion feel so threatened by these points of view that are alternative to their own. One needs only to note the words of an e-mail sent out by the Minnesota Democrat party encouraging people to oppose the military ads: “What we do here, now, will have an enormous impact on the success or failure of this kind of swiftboating in 06” (emphasis mine).
Just as the Swiftboat Veterans damaged John Kerry’s quest for the White House in 2004 with their presentation of accounts that were never effectively countered by his campaign, those on the left know that in this election year, there are facts whose revelation are counterproductive to their political goals. The problem is that they are using the same response tactic – denouncing the messengers – that failed to work for Senator Kerry. Much better to disprove the message. But then, there’s the problem brought up at the beginning of this piece – it’s a message that they are unable to disprove.
Symbolically, this “tactic” was manifested during the president’s State of the Union Address by the gathering of the moonbat left, led by Cindy Sheehan’s example, outside the capitol, at which they banged pots, pans, drums, and whatever else they could find to try to “drown out” President Bush’s message in the House Chamber.
But what was symbolized that night has obviously become a very real strategy for many who have no other way to respond to Republican positions. And just as the president’s speech that night kicked off a campaign of sorts for him to push the agenda he had just laid out for the year, it seems that the night also kicked off the left’s campaign for their own agenda laid out that night – to silence anyone who dares to hold a position contrary to their own. Two recent developments certainly seem to bear this out.
The first involves an Illinois newspaper’s refusal to run advertisements produced by a pro-life group in opposition to abortion. The reason given by the paper is that the images in the ads are “too graphic.”
The images in question? Sonograms. Those pictures taken of the unborn child inside the womb. Like the ones many expectant parents keep on their desks or refrigerators to show to friends. Like the ones featured recently in a major company’s television ad campaign showing technological breakthroughs they have produced.
The second has to do with television advertisements produced in support of the war in Iraq. These ads feature servicemen, as well as family members of servicemen lost in the war, speaking of the need to continue the job that has been started and take note of the good things being done in the war-torn nation. The reason at least one Minnesota television station has given for rejecting them is that they criticize the mainstream media. And goodness knows how little tolerance members of sage institutions like the mainstream media, or United States Senate incumbents, have for criticism.
Both episodes feature criticism, or at least alternative points of view, that is very difficult for the left to respond to. In the first case, the difficulty is the uphill battle they face against logic in their continued refusal to acknowledge that what’s in the womb is human life, as born out by technologies that allow people to see more clearly than ever what actually is conceived in the womb.
In the second, the difficulty comes from having to support a position that runs contrary to a group of people who are, by and large, held in very high esteem by the American public – members of America’s military. Needless to say, it’s no small task for someone to argue the point that the war is a disaster from which America must extricate itself quickly while those who have actually been on the ground in Iraq say just the opposite.
In such a position, what can one do other than hope that those whom you oppose will stop talking? In this case, apparently they can actively seek to silence those voices themselves. Witness the refusal of media outlets, no friends of Republicans or conservatives in general, to publish or air the ads in question.
And it’s grown beyond just an issue with liberal-friendly media outlets. Both of these episodes have been jumped on by political organizations as well. In the Illinois newspaper fight, an official with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has gone on record as saying that “the Right to Life ads are intended to inflame public opinion and create shame and fear about abortion.” In Minnesota, the state Democrat party has weighed in against the military ads, calling them “un-American, untruthful and a lie,” as well as noting the tragedy over the fact that “our brave men and women are being used in this type of propaganda.”
Hearing these arguments, one can’t be faulted if he wonders if similar indignation would be expressed by these leftists had they been able to weigh in against those that “inflamed public opinion” against slavery in the nineteenth century, or against civil rights inequities in the twentieth. And it would be no great surprise if one were to wonder why no similar outrage has been expressed over the use of Ms. Sheehan’s story for “propaganda.”
Of course, it’s not hard to see why those of a liberal persuasion feel so threatened by these points of view that are alternative to their own. One needs only to note the words of an e-mail sent out by the Minnesota Democrat party encouraging people to oppose the military ads: “What we do here, now, will have an enormous impact on the success or failure of this kind of swiftboating in 06” (emphasis mine).
Just as the Swiftboat Veterans damaged John Kerry’s quest for the White House in 2004 with their presentation of accounts that were never effectively countered by his campaign, those on the left know that in this election year, there are facts whose revelation are counterproductive to their political goals. The problem is that they are using the same response tactic – denouncing the messengers – that failed to work for Senator Kerry. Much better to disprove the message. But then, there’s the problem brought up at the beginning of this piece – it’s a message that they are unable to disprove.
posted by JeffreyH | 10:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home