Copyright 10.19.2010 By Chase Kyla Hunter
One of the many ways one can determine that the intellectual abilities of Americans are entering into possibly irreversible decline is the sad phenomenon that the masses gradually begin to cease thinking for themselves, and instead allow Kali Yuga drenched media satirists, commentators, pundits, professional opinionators, comedic actors, and celebrities on TV to do ALL of their thinking for them. These undiscerning masses have now been blasted with a nonstop firehose of “propaganda programmed faux entertainment shows” and irrelevant fictional nonsense advertised as “content” since babyhood.
By adulthood their mental discernment is now mostly mush. Witness America in 2010 after being subjected to 50 years of “TV entertainment,” which is actually more a sort of hypnotic daily televised prozac for the nonthinking masses. I rest my case.
Oh don’t get me wrong, I watch it too, [ I’m a writer who studies society… I have to] but with the eye of the socially aware critic, who often wonders out loud what goshe TV producer first uttered the idea in some focus group on new programs that Americans were now becoming so dumb, generationally, that they would actually fail to notice that they were generationally now being “TV programmed” to become emotionally infantile non-thinking adult children, craving death, sex, blood murder, and cartoons just like their kids do, literally unable to understand the viciously destructive results of being fed this televised banality and nonsense for the duration of their childhoods into and throughout their adult lives.
Sorry to type it all out for you, but this is what is has now come to in 2010. America began crossing the dreaded photon belt threshold into this bizarre deteriorating societal and mental condition in the early 1990s, and the cancerous “anti-thinking” phenomenon is now far advanced, possibly terminal. Sitting slouched on sofas, mostly in a pizza and pot stupor, untold millions of Americans have by now utterly lost the ability to think for themselves about much of anything or anyone in public life, letting the internet and TV do their thinking for them instead.
That’s how it came to be in 2008 that a Katie Couric TV interview and a Saturday Night Live comedy parody became the nexus for how many millions of politically clueless Americans came to fear and loathe Sarah Palin in much the same way that heathen African natives fear and loathe cigarette lighters when they see them for the first time. They just don’t have a frame of reference yet.
Sarah Palin offers more raw hope for this country’s political future and intact moral survival than the last 6 presidential candidates combined that have been elected since 1974, Ronald Reagan included. Reagan’s media mythology was much bigger than his actual intellect, and America bought the media mythology. Palin’s media mythology has been somewhat different, and it is now changing fast, and in a positive and intelligent direction.
I’d like to personally thank the Washington Post for finally writing an actual truthful essay that separates the media myths about her from the facts. Hats off to you WP. I appreciate this.
Chase Kyla Hunter
Referenced post below:
Five myths about Sarah Palin
Sunday, October 17, 2010
var rn = ( Math.round( Math.random()*10000000000 ) );
She didn’t. CNN’s 2008 national exit poll, for example, asked voters whether Palin was a factor when they stepped into the voting booth. Those who said yes broke for McCain 56 percent to 43 percent.
Before Palin’s selection, remember, McCain suffered from an enthusiasm gap. Republicans were reluctant to vote for the senator from Arizona because of his reputation as a maverick who’d countered his party on taxes, immigration, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and “cap and trade” climate legislation. But Palin’s conservative record in Alaska and antiabortion advocacy changed the Republican mood. With her by his side, McCain’s fundraising and support from conservatives improved. It wasn’t enough to beat Barack Obama — but McCain probably would have lost the presidency by a greater margin if he had, say, selected independent Sen. Joe Lieberman as his running mate, further alienating the GOP base.
// // <![CDATA[
if ( show_doubleclick_ad && ( adTemplate & INLINE_ARTICLE_AD ) == INLINE_ARTICLE_AD && inlineAdGraf )
Yes, it’s possible that Palin’s conservatism and uneven performance on the campaign trail shifted some voters to Obama’s column. But even if Obama picked up some anti-Palin votes, he surely didn’t need them: The economy was in recession, Wall Street was in meltdown, and the incumbent Republican president was incredibly unpopular. In the end, it’s impossible to know how McCain would have performed if he hadn’t selected Palin — politics does not allow for control experiments.
2. Resigning as governor was rash.
No one expected Palin’s resignation on July 3, 2009, just 2 1/2 years into her term. Her hastily composed and clumsily delivered farewell address left many observers confused about her motives. Some of her critics were only too eager to fill in the gaps with conjecture and hearsay (She’s being investigated by the FBI! Sarah and Todd must be headed for divorce!). If there was one thing everybody knew for sure, it was that Palin’s career in politics was over.
But none of the rumored scandals ever broke. The Palins remain married. And as for Sarah Palin’s career, it’s taken off. She plays a far greater role in American public life than she did before she left office.
When Palin returned to Alaska after the 2008 campaign, she confronted three problems. The political coalition on which she had based her governorship — a combination of Democrats and renegade “Palinista” Republicans — had collapsed. Her critics were using Alaska’s tough ethics laws to launch investigations into her behavior, sapping her finances and her energy. Finally, every time she traveled to the Lower 48, Alaskans criticized her for putting her political interests above the state’s.
Palin’s solution was to resign. Her agenda stood a better chance of passing if then-Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, who shared Palin’s goals, succeeded her as governor. As a private citizen, meanwhile, Palin could make enough money to pay her legal bills. And she would no longer be accused of neglecting her official duties.
Some might say that Palin’s resignation was shortsighted and showed that she was not ready for the demands of executive office. But if Palin had remained governor, she would have been denied opportunities to rally the tea party and fight in the battle over the Obama agenda. She would have been stuck on a regional stage. Instead, she’s back on the national one.
3. Palin and the tea party are destroying the GOP.
You’ve heard the spiel: The Republican Party is in the midst of a civil war between moderate incumbents and far-right challengers backed by Palin and the tea party. Driving Charlie Crist from the GOP and defeating establishment figures such as Robert Bennett, Lisa Murkowski and Mike Castle spells electoral doom for the party. The only chance Republicans have for long-term success is to move to the center in a bid to win over millennials and Latinos.
But demographics aren’t destiny, and no one knows what the future holds. The reality, right now, is that Palin and the tea party are saving the GOP by dragging it back to its roots and mobilizing conservative voters.
Remember, by the time Palin arrived on the national scene, the Republican Party was depleted, exhausted and held in disrepute. An unpopular war in Iraq, an economy in recession and GOP corruption had driven away independents. Meanwhile, massive government spending and a liberal immigration policy had dispirited conservatives.
This is where Palin came in. In the wake of Obama’s historic victory, she and countless other grass-roots activists could have abandoned the GOP and turned the tea party into a conservative third party. They didn’t. They decided instead to refashion the Republican Party from the ground up, pressuring it to live up to its limited-government ideals. Now, two years after Obama’s win, Republicans are poised to reap major gains in the midterm elections. Palin and the tea party haven’t hurt the GOP one bit.
4. Palin is extreme.
On many of the most important issues of the day, Palin holds positions that are squarely in the center-right of American political discourse. And many of those positions, not incidentally, are held by a large segment or even a majority of the public. For instance, neither the public nor Palin believes the stimulus worked. And while most Americans may not share Palin’s views regarding “death panels,” many join her in opposing Obama’s health-care overhaul.
Over the past two years, Pew and Gallup surveys have tracked the public as it has moved to the right — not on just one or two issues but on a whole constellation of them. Even on the controversial topics of abortion, guns and same-sex marriage, Palin is not as far away from the center as some suppose. A May 2009 Gallup poll, for example, found that a majority of Americans identified as “pro-life” rather than “pro-choice.” In October 2009, Gallup measured record-low support for gun control. The public is divided on same-sex marriage, with about half the country joining Palin’s (and Obama’s) opposition.
5. Palin is unelectable.
Without question, a Palin 2012 campaign would be an uphill battle. Palin is unpopular — massively so among Democrats, decisively so among independents. Even many Republicans don’t believe she’s ready to be president.
But opinions can change. Look at the political resuscitations of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Hillary Rodham Clinton. If Palin works hard and runs an impressive campaign, wavering Republicans and skeptical independents may give her a second look.
To earn that second look, she may need to find a big idea. It’s hard to become president without one. Reagan had supply-side economics and the end of detente with the Soviets. Bill Clinton had the third way. George W. Bush had compassionate conservatism and the freedom agenda. Obama had national unity and hope and change.
At the moment, however, Palin still expresses her agenda mainly in negative terms, focusing on her opposition to Obama and the Washington establishment. She hasn’t defined her “common-sense conservatism” in positive language. And she hasn’t found a unifying, exhilarating theme.
Then again, she just might get along without one. After all, a presidential contest is a choice. The public might not love Palin. But by 2012, Americans might absolutely despise Obama. Two more years of a bad economy and an unpopular Afghan war, and anything is possible. Yes, there’s a ceiling to Palin’s support. But in 2012, there also will be a ceiling to Obama’s.
Whose will be higher?
Matthew Continetti is opinion editor of the Weekly Standard and the author of “The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star.” He will be online Monday, Oct. 18, at 1 p.m. ET to chat. Submit your questions or comments before or during the discussion.
Want to challenge everything you think you know? Visit the “Five Myths” archive.