.
The huge ass majority of this post goes after the
jump. Why? So you can ignore it. But I cannot.
There are the occasional diatribes that must be rebuked , for me with a
sarcastic humor. However I don’t need to
subject everyone to it.
.
The incoherent mass of sentences below comes from a mailer, as pitch, for a new book by Johan
Goldberg, called “The Tyranny of Clichés.”
It is the full reprint of a review of the book by Townhall’s JacquelineOtto. And yet… and yet, it traffics in
nothing by clichés and generalizations in its sales pitch. My head will explode if I can’t comment. So, to avoid the head explosion….
Always one for a good rant, Greg Gutfeld on Fox News' late afternoon show The Five has recently had a series of "banned
words." He argues that certain words and phrases such as
"narrative" and "slippery slope" have been over used and
therefore shouldn't be used until people learn what they actually mean. It's
almost as if Gutfeld has been reading from a copy of Jonah Goldberg's new book, The Tyranny of Clichés: How
Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas.
Wait; is the
problem definitions of words or clichés?
This is a book about Goldberg's pet peeves. …
Oh, it is about
neither. Why didn’t you say that?
… It is about all of the debates, arguments and lectures for which
he laboriously prepared and was countered with a lack-luster cop-out of a
response. It is about those times that he dumbfoundedly stared as someone, and
in his best Inigo Montoya voice said, "You keep using that word. I do not
think it means what you think it means." In his own introduction to the
book Goldberg says, "there's a kind of argument-that-isn't-an-argument"
and he was going to stand for it no longer.
Again, Inigo,
you are confusing definitions with clichés.
But I won’t harp on it.
Certain words and phrases have so much power in our political
discussion that invoking one acts as a conversation-stopper. This is the
tyranny that Goldberg argues serves no justice to the advancement of ideas.
Like “liberal”
or “socialist” or “mob”?
In most cases, these clichés are relied upon as crutches for those
too ignorant to realize that they don't actually have an argument….
Clichés like “gay
agenda” or “femi-nazi”.
… What really vexed Goldberg is that liberals have a way of using
them intentionally.
Yes, it is
annoying that “liberals” use words intentionally. We should all use them like Mitt Romney –
completely devoid of intention or honesty.
Have you ever wondered what liberals really mean when they said
things such as "well you are just an ideologue..." as if they are
not? Or they appeal to "social justice" as if we should all
intuitively understand what that means. What about people who instinctively say
that conservative policies hurt the middle class? Or they say that Republicans
are all just "social Darwinists" who deny "science"?
Well, “social
Darwinists” are people who believe that “survival of the fittest” is the
appropriate method for societies to grow.
They would leave behind the weak, the poor and those unable to go to
school or get health care without the intervention of government providing a
public good.
And “science” is
the systematic study of the physical world, where we accept the reality of the
world. “Science” explains gravity,
climate, medicine and agriculture. It is
NOT a Chinese Restaurant where you can take 2 from column A, 1 from column B
and none from column “Global Climate Change”.
While Goldberg is certainly not the first conservative pundit to
point out the brevity and inadequacy of these kinds of liberal arguments, his
book takes painstaking efforts to actually work through every tacky cliché.
While these represent his personal pet peeves, they certainly ring true for
most readers.
“ring true” – is
that a cliché?
What I most enjoyed about this book, is the subtle subplot he
builds, slowly attacking the pseudo-moral-superiority that liberals enjoy in
their ephemeral insipidity…
I have read a
lot of Jonah Goldberg, there is nothing subtle about his arguments.
… Liberals generally have little use for religion in public life,
hence the "separation of church and state" cliché…
Wow, that is a pretty wide topic change mid-paragraph, but OK.
No. Liberals generally have little use for religion
in government. In public life, there is a large use of
religion. Supporting religious outreach
to the poor (I work with World Vision Christian ministries), supporting clothes
and food drives for the poor in this country as well as those that attend
church means there is a great deal of use for religion in public life. Just not in government.
… But when they need moral-sounding arguments for their pet
projects they trot out all manner of sentiments and scriptures. …
Liberals don’t
need moral-sounding arguments, they support many of these programs out of a
moral mind set. There is a difference
between morality driving your actions, and a single religion driving government’s
actions.
…We ought to care for the poor, therefore we obviously need this
agency, and so on. "I'm unaware of any passages in the Hebrew or Christian
bibles," Goldberg points out, "where God says that doing good to
others means supporting bloated, inefficient, and often counterproductive
government programs."
Dear Ms. Otto,
this is what is called, a “straw man argument”.
Mr. Goldberg, by tying his quote to the argument that liberals think we
ought to care for the poor, makes it sound as if liberals are supporting the need for government action by quoting the Bible. We do not.
By using Mr. Goldberg’s same logic, the Bible
doesn’t talk about differential tax rates for Capital Gains, or regulating drug
safety or supporting the invasion of Iraq by the United States. There are a plethora of things the Bible does
not state.
In discussing how liberals dismiss capitalism as pure evil, he
points out that capitalism actually had a founding in very moral sentiments.
Cliché alert! Liberals do not dismiss capitalism as pure
evil. Nor any evil. Capitalism is a
method of commerce. It can be practiced
in a positive, negative, evil or moral way.
"[Adam] Smith
believed that the free market and, more broadly, the free society, directs
men's vanity towards its proper objects, the virtues of prudence, restraint,
industry, frugality, sobriety, honesty, civility, and reliability. Freedom
teaches the virtue of 'self-command' which, he writes, 'is not only itself a
great virtue, but from it all the other virtues seem to derive their principal
luster.' And this is the great and tragic irony. The hurly-burly of America's
cultural politics, while important, even vital, can never unravel the implicit
social contract of capitalism which says that if you follow the virtues Adam
Smith laid out, you will do just fine. If you teach those values to your kids,
they will do better than you."
No one argues
that capitalism was not founded in moral sentiments. However, capitalism – as practiced by some,
does not display the virtues of prudence, restraint, frugality, civility and
honesty - to name just those few of those sentiments that are completely corrupted by the Financial sector
on Wall Street (as bailed out by the dreaded government).
This is a discussion often omitted from the debates. …
It is omitted
from debates because the historical origins discussion brings nothing of value
to the currect state of capitalsm. Just
like we don’t discuss the human-powered bronze plough when we strategize on how
to plant corn in Iowa
…Liberals wholly believe in their moral superiority because of
their cliché of "social justice."
I think the “Liberals
wholly believe in their moral superiority” is quite a generalization here. It is assumption that is incorrect. It is possible to argue that something is the
correct path without assuming one’s own argument is morally superior. I can argue about capitalism with no
assumptions at all about moral superiority.
They seek justice from the government and from corporations, but
as they correctly point out, time and time again, neither the government nor
corporations are people. Morality must come from individuals. …
First, you are
equating “justice” and “morality”. They
are not the same. It is possible to seek
“justice” from government and corporations.
This is why we have laws governing the actions and limitations of
both. The “morality” of these laws must
be supplied by the individuals that make the laws. Liberals seek “justice” from corporations by
expecting them to follow the laws.
Liberals desire some amount of “morality” in the creation of those laws, which is why we look at the morality of those we elect to make the laws.
…As a system, free markets and limited government treats
individuals with more dignity, provides them with more opportunity, and
deputizes them to be the moral agents in their community. …
“more dignity”
and “more opportunity” than what exactly?
As for “moral agents in their community” – I must have missed the deputization
ceremony. Free markets and limited government may free people to be moral
agents in their community, but it doesn’t deputize them.
A government that deputizes citizens to be
moral agents is Communisum. North Korea
deputizes citizens to be moral agents – even though neither of us would agree
with the “morality” at work.
…The moral superiority of freedom is that it is balanced with the
increased moral responsibility of individuals.
What? The “moral superiority of freedom” might DEPEND on “increased moral
responsibility of individuals”, but there is no requirement. One doesn’t have to follow the other. Hence, laws.
Liberals, most recently seen occupying Wall Street, expend great
energy condemning caricatures of Gordon Gekko….
Where to begin?
At most there a few thousand occupying Wall
Street. To paint all liberals as those
people is intellectually dishonest (a cliché, but true). There are maybe a hundred million liberals,
to decide we are all represented by the Occupy Wall Street is lazy. It equivalent to someone calling ALL Catholics child molesters, based on a small sample of Catholic Priests. Is it obviously untrue and meant to paint a
terrible picture.
Next, those
occupying Wall Street were not "condemning caricatures of Gordon Gekko". They
were condemning the actions of those in the Financial Sector that bilked
millions of average Americans, and then got bailed out when the game fell
apart. Then, after getting bailed out,
provided themselves with hundreds of millions in bonuses, will denying loans to
many deserving people. Which is, by the
way, to my brain, not so moral.
… In reality they are just a mob….
Really? “just a
mob” that is an odd thing to say.
… And as Goldberg points out, "That is not the American
political tradition or creed. In America the hero is not the mob. It is the man
- or woman- who stands up to the mob..."
Oh, there it
is. So then, from your words, it is
acceptable (nay, moral) to paint an entire group of people with a single brush –
to disregard any actual arguments - so as to later disparage and reject
everything they say? Wow. To paraphrase Jonah, I am unaware of anywhere
in the Bible that people who peacefully demonstrate against Corporations can be
summarily dismissed as a “mob”.
Alternatively, there are passages in the Constitution that specifically
recognize a person’s right to demonstrate.
Ultimately though, the liberals are demonstrating not only their
improper knowledge of freedom and free markets, but their misconstruction of
the very morality to which their clichés appeal.
To paraphrase
Inigo Montoya, “knowledge of freedom?” I
do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
Properly understood, the
case for capitalism is not a case for license or for laissez faire... It is a
case for the moderate virtues, encouraged by market pressures but finally drawn
from deeper wells--from the wisdom of tradition, the love of the family, and
the divine and mysterious tug of a love beyond love, all of which must in turn
be supported, encouraged, and strengthened.
Well-being and prosperity encompass more than material goods. They
concern the condition of our character. Freedom is a well-spring of virtue for
the well-being of our souls. Its product is the prosperity of our hearts.
And here my head
bows off.
Did you NOT read
what you wrote? “.. the case for capitalism is not a case for license or laissez
faire..” And yet you decry as immoral
any attempt to regulate or rein in unbridled capitalism. It is nearly impossible to have a coherent
discussion with someone who defends laissez faire capitalism by use of a quote
against laissez faire capitalism!
Ah,
but you aren’t really trying to have a discussion are you? You are merely trotting out a sophomoric set
of lies to explain how liberals only talk in clichés.
This argument requires a fully-developed vocabulary to discuss, a
well-honed sense of logic to debate, and a soften heart to understand. It
cannot be captured nor countered by mere clichés. And that we cannot have the
argument, because liberals lack or refuse to employ the capacity, is what
Goldberg calls the tyranny.
So, you justify
not talking to liberals, by saying we aren’t worthy of talking to. That is cleaver. Completely useless in resolving the problems of our
country, but cleaver.