If we build it, will they come?

I hate to harp on the media, but Old Media sources are a sad and pathetic joke. I suppose an understanding writer could explain all the nuances regarding the media's fall from grace, but I believe the bottom line is that they fear for their existence, and they know that progressive policies will help them survive more than conservative or libertarian policies. Old Media depend on statist control, because a truly free market would soon eat them alive.

I don't really want to write about the media, but I'm wondering if this election is the end of their influence or if it'll take another four years, if we can survive another 4 years of rampant statism. I've read and heard all the rationalizations from Leftists and Centrists regarding the need to protect the integrity of the State. Anyone who denigrates our powerful State is now framed as an extremist kook, and, if the threat is very real, framed as racists, homophobes and misogynists.

We'll see in November if the public at large is ready to bury the Old Media and go forward with another defense of liberty. Every so often Americans are stirred to resist the over-reach of the State, although America citizens haven't fully resisted the encroachment, and now government has gained the necessary powers to allow State dominance if the power players so choose to use the power. I fear that 2012 is the tipping point. I'm always reticent to sound the alarm to the point of claiming we can lose our liberty completely, because, relatively speaking, Americans still possess a large degree of liberty. The only reason we possess relative liberty, though, is because the State has not moved to an extreme degree of control, but the structure is built for the State to do so, mainly through an interventionist government controlling the major aspects of the economy -- healthcare, finance, energy, manufacturing, education and so forth.

I can easily imagine civil liberties swept to the side as another terrorist attack gives the State the rationaliztion it needs to dominate completely. I'm tired of the argument surrounding Barack Obama -- in the large scheme of things, Obama is a bit player. What is at stake in 2012 is ideas -- the concepts of free speech, limited government, free markets, innovation, non-interventionism, free trade, peace through strength, freedom of religion, pursuit of happiness, equal opportunity, fair competition, creative cooperation. These ideas have little to do with government and a powerful State. As long as a minimal government can protect our rights, society can thrive from the influence of these ideas.

Opposed to the ideas above are the ideas of statism -- dependence, taxation, progressive narratives, central management, social engineering, social justice, equality of results, obedience, stability, uniformity, militarism, welfarism, etc. We'll know in November if enough Americans still value liberty, limited government and a free market. We'll know if Americans are ready to leave the mideast and stop intervening in the affairs of other nations. There are so many issues caused by a powerful State that we'll have to start now rolling back the power -- we're out of time. The Fed, the military/industrial complex, the bureacracies, the UN, the IMF and WTO -- the State is a Leviatahan and has to be beaten down to size or  transcended by a vibrant private sector. In a couple of months we'll know. If Republicans gain control and fail to roll back government power, then we'll know the next step, and the next step will not entail either party.

Do Democrats really want to raise taxes?

I think Democrats are less interested in being on record as voting for tax hikes than they are framing Tea Party conservatives as radical, then tarring the Republican Party with the "extreme" position of no new revenues. Even the "loophole" argument is bogus. If there are unfair loopholes which favor the rich, that would be a slam dunk, and all Republicans would agree to closing such loopholes.

Obama and the Democrats simply want to frame Republicans as "extreme" and unreasonable. This is why neither the Senate nor Obama actually developed a plan. The Senate could have amended the Republican plans, but they chose to denigrate the plans and block them from debate and a vote in the Senate. This has been a political game, and the Democrats are depending on media coverage to win. Has the public become sophisticated enough to discover the game? If not this time, next year the public will definitely be educated enough on the issues to see through the chicanery. Time is running out for statists in both parties. The internet/New Media is quickly displacing Old Media.

It's becoming clearer as time goes on that our statist system is terribly flawed.

Chris Matthews' vile hatred of Tea Party conservatives

I don't see an organzied conspiracy among the Old Media types, but they certainly walk in lock-step in their all-out war on Tea Party conservatives. It would be one thing if these limited government conservatives were calling for civil liberty violations, or if they were racists organizing hate group activity aimed at minorities, but they aren't -- they merely have a different vision regarding how American governance should be ordered. I don't know of one new Republican representative who doesn't promote advancement of minorities, but they beleive advancement will come through a vibrant, freer private sector economy, not through Big Government welfare schemes. The limited government conservatives also believe that fraud, waste and abuse is crippling our country. Bottom line is they believe government has become too big and powerful -- these are not the type of ideas that should produce hatred, but among the Old Media statists like Chris Matthews, the conservative ideas are producing an extreme reaction which resembles religious persecution of heretics moreso than typical political conflict.

An honest person can disagree with the limited government political philosophy, but the vile hatred foaming from the mouth of the likes of Chris Matthews is beyond disagreement over political philosophy. I watched Matthews interview Mike Lee, and Matthews didn't allow Lee to answer -- Matthews raised his voice, interrupting and accusing Lee of intentionally hurting the American people. Matthews perpetually frames limited government conservatives as demons in the political world, when in reality they only want to limit the power of government and return power to the private sector. What Matthews reflects is the desperate attempt of Washington statists to protect a powerful, interventionist government. Matthews shows no goodwill or intellectual curiosity in his opposition to limited government ideology -- he shows a type of hatred and rage that can only be described as out-of-control, mean-spirited and very closed minded.

We live in incredible times

The advent of a new media has offset the bias of traditional media sources, and it's beyond obvious that traditional media sources are for the most part biased toward the modern liberal mindset as represented politically by the Democrat Party. Although anyone who sets out to find evidence that bias doesn't exist can find articles in the traditional media which are critical of certain actions of certain Democrats, the overall coverage, and particlarly what's not covered, reveals a bias that is undeniable.

The new media provides diversity, but if the new media is objectively fair to the Right, it's usually relegated to the category of far-right propaganda by liberal Old Media types. Media sources such as the NYT, Washington Post, LA times, ABC, NBC, CBS, and cable news like MSNBC have practically become components of a Modern Liberal State which is now captured by progressive ideas. It's true that any of these news outlets can produce objective pieces criticizing certain aspects of the Modern Liberal State, but when push comes to shove, they are on board with Democrats maintaining political power. We are unlikely to see Republicans receiving objective coverage as elections draw near, or if a major battle is waged over a Modern Liberal piece of legislation such as the healthcare bill.

Recently, what's incredible has been the difference in coverage of the Tea Party protests and the Wisconsin protests. Whereas there was no evidence of violence, and very little evidence of violent rhetoric at Tea Party rallies, you'd never know it by the handwringing in the media worried about right-wing violent rhetoric. That same handwringing has been conspicuously absent during the Wisconsin rallies in which violent rhetoric and actual violence were clearly present. The calls for an end to hateful speech after the Gabby Giffords' tragedy disappeared as many on Left in Wisconsin voiced far more hatred and violent rhetoric than any Tea Party rally.

This difference in coverage is truly incredible, especially for a sane observer expecting at least a little fairness.

Democrats and media still don't get it

The political manipulation of the Arizona shootings by liberal-leaning media and Democrats indicates they still haven't accepted the equalization of information provided by the new media. Many on the left deny that bias exists in the old media, but no reasonable person will deny it, and the new media is highlighting this bias everyday, even as some in the old media do their best to put on a show of objectivity. Some dinosaur journalists were careful in much of their wording and presentation, but most couldn't help taking advantage of a crisis to score political points and boost the Democrats after the midterm "shellacking".

It has been quite a sad show, and the more sophisticated news consumer is, no doubt, appalled. Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and many, many bloggers have countered the political manipulation by painting a comprehensive picture of the pathetic opportunism, and many, many people listen to and read these new media figures. But all the news consumer needs is smidgen of counter-evidence, then their little fingers can search the big wide internet to discover the rest, such as the incidences of military rhetoric used by Democrats, the many examples of Democrat "heated rhetoric", Obama saying if they bring a knife, you bring a gun, on and on until the Democrats and their media supporters are left hanging like babbling, deceitful fools.

The game changed a while back, and now the new media has far more influence than the old media, regardless if this is thought of as a good thing or a bad thing -- it just is. The horrible incident in Arizona and the Democrat/old media response will drain independent support from the Democrats. The adult liberals in the Democrat Party should stand firmly against the political manipulation and advise Obama to not follow one Democrat operative's advice that he, Obama, take this opportunity to give a speech like Clinton gave after the Oklahoma bombing, basically accusing radio talk show hosts of poisoning the environment and influencing McVeigh.

The Democrats and the old media must accept that the days of information advantage are over, and the longer they deny this, the more support they're going to lose.