'Media Bias' Discussion

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

It is hard to nail a politician to the wall that you like. I don’t like doing it in the papers and I assume they’re no different at the highest levels. It’s far easy to go after someone you hate… and I’m sure the fact that they’re at the top level going after people like Pig is that much more invigorating. [/quote]

Doesn’t matter - there is a job to do. If you are willing to dumpster dive in Wasilla to “nail” a Republican from Alaska, you damn well better generate the same effort for a Democrat from Chicago.

If you can’t, find a different job. Journalism is a profession with ethics.

Being reasonably fair and objective is actually fairly easy. No one is asking for miracles - but America deserves, at a minimum, competence.

22

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Doesn’t matter - there is a job to do. If you are willing to dumpster dive in Wasilla to “nail” a Republican from Alaska, you damn well better generate the same effort for a Democrat from Chicago.

If you can’t, find a different job. Journalism is a profession with ethics.
[/quote]

Not that I don’t agree, but the party is really irrelevant, at least to me. There’s a lot of politicians that are politicians because… well, they’re really likable.

It doesn’t stop you from doing your job, but there have definitely been times when I heard someone was going down for corruption that it actually bothered me. Doesn’t mean you don’t write the story, I’m just trying to give perspective.

As I’ve said before, I liked McCain- I’d feel the same way writing something about his family as I would about Obama or even Pig. (Which is, “like an asshole.”)

[quote]
The job is not as easy as some folks would make it seem to be.

Being reasonably fair and objective is actually fairly easy. No one is asking for miracles - but America deserves, at a minimum, competence.[/quote]

It has always been easy for me. I actually receive many, many complements on how fair my articles are- even when people don’t like what I wrote, they can’t complain that I wasn’t fair.

But I do mostly hard news, and to me that’s simple. For some people, maybe not so much.

23

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

If you can’t, find a different job. Journalism should be a profession with ethics.[/quote]

Fixed that for you :slight_smile:

24

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< Not that I don’t agree, but the party is really irrelevant, at least to me. There’s a lot of politicians that are politicians because… well, they’re really likable. >>>[/quote]

Oh now come on here. You are either being naive or dishonest. Likability refers primarily to policy, not personality and that’s what I was referring to too.

The MSM campaigned for obama because they share his version of reality and they also know that swing voters with little or no real conviction on anything decide every damn election. All they have to do is selectively report and spin and the mushy middle has a very good chance being swept up in the fervor.

This isn’t about “having a beer” with the guy, not primarily anyway. Obama’s half blackness and rise from obscurity to Harvard elitist and national candidate was a modern liberal journalists wet dream in addition to his being exactly what they wanted from a policy perspective. This mission was way way too significant to let fail.

25

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< Not that I don’t agree, but the party is really irrelevant, at least to me. There’s a lot of politicians that are politicians because… well, they’re really likable. >>>

Oh now come on here. You are either being naive or dishonest. Likability refers primarily to policy, not personality and that’s what I was referring to too.

The MSM campaigned for obama because they share his version of reality and they also know that swing voters with little or no real conviction on anything decide every damn election. All they have to do is selectively report and spin and the mushy middle has a very good chance being swept up in the fervor.
[/quote]

I wasn’t particularly talking about Obama, I was talking lower level politics when you have a lot of interaction with the politicians.

However, I still do not subscribe to the ideas that the media campaigned for Obama. There was enough shit slung on both sides that it was an equal fight. I know you’re all going to cry about this, but I truly don’t care.

I saw all of the articles about Obama the terrorist, the Muslim, the best friend of Bill Ayers, the bullshit. There’s no way in hell you’re going to convince me otherwise.

If I had to say, “Who did the media favor?” Sure, I’d say Obama. But “campaigned for” is far too strong a word, and McCain and Pig brought up so much shit that the media couldn’t hide it even if they wanted to.

[quote]
This isn’t about “having a beer” with the guy, not primarily anyway. Obama’s half blackness and rise from obscurity to Harvard elitist and national candidate was a modern liberal journalists wet dream in addition to his being exactly what they wanted from a policy perspective. This mission was way way too significant to let fail.[/quote]

Why is he a Harvard elitist? What the fuck is with you people and calling intelligent folks “elitist?” Every politician is an elitist. Pig is an elitist. McCain is a representative of the old, white elite. All of them are.

Besides that, I’ll just say it again for posterity- you’re delusional.

26

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< Why is he a Harvard elitist? What the fuck is with you people and calling intelligent folks “elitist?” >>>[/quote]

Look, life will never be fair to everybody and never ever will everybody be qualitatively equal in terms of personal character. The genius of this country was that it provided an environment wherein those who had the ability and the motivation could succeed and those who didn’t would fail. In many cases failure was used as an impetus to eventual success and that even greater than might have been the case had they not experienced that initial failure. Those who were actually incapable of taking care of themselves were looked after by a combination of family and private charity. Those who would not take care of themselves were given the the big “your problem” treatment.

A sort of societal “survival of the fittest”. Were some passed over? Yep. Were some treated unjustly? Yes they were. Was there room for adjustment as the world changed? Absolutely. However, on the whole it worked for workers and failed for failures and YES YES YES, some people are failures. They suck at everything, aren’t very intelligent, are lazy and slothful or any fatal combination therein. That has been and will always be the hard reality of human existence. It’s true among families, societies and nations.

Elitists are those special self and mutually exalted individuals who have, in a classroom, solved the intolerable unfairness I have just concisely described. THEY will manipulate and sculpt a society and by God a world, where none are left to fail regardless of how ambitious their pursuit of failure may be. Of course this of necessity will also mean that none can be allowed to become TOO successful either.

What’s amazing is that crime and poverty were a minuscule fraction of the problems they are today before this coerced community delusion really took hold. Some of the lowly clawed their way to mediocrity and many of the apparently mediocre squeezed excellence out of themselves. No more. A few hundred elitists in a far away city will take care of everything.

I could type a 20 page essay describing the hows and whys of all this, but that’s it in short. It has nothing to do with intelligence or education in and of itself. It’s the type of “education” and the mountaintop gaze into the valley of despair that it engenders that is what I mean at least by the term elitist.

27

Dude, Barack Obama came from very humble beginnings. And I wouldn’t really call creating job and college preparatory programs in poor Chicago neighborhoods a “mountaintop gaze into the valley of despair”.

28

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Elitists are those special self and mutually exalted individuals who have, in a classroom, solved the intolerable unfairness I have just concisely described. THEY will manipulate and sculpt a society and by God a world, where none are left to fail regardless of how ambitious their pursuit of failure may be. Of course this of necessity will also mean that none can be allowed to become TOO successful either.
[/quote]

Most of your post had nothing to do with what I asked, and I’m not addressing the BS rhetoric.

But your own definition contradicts what you’re saying. I know you people love to go on and on about college professors and their liberal tendencies- that’s fine. Some were too liberal for me, and not accepting of other views at all.

However, those are the people that solve things in the classroom. By your definition, no politician anywhere can be an elitist, because they’ve made a career of NOT being in the classroom, but being in the game. They are not solving things from somewhere far removed from what’s going on- they’re implementing and changing things to suit what’s going on and to try to correct the problems they are encountering.

Obama was a community organizer, then a state senator, then a US Senator. If anything, he’s been more in tune with things that go on in both the community and the statehouse then many of us.

Honestly, by your definition, there’s mostly elitists on this board- people who sit around, in a classroom or in their office, and tell everyone else how the government should be run… even though they’ve never had any part in it.

What in the fuck are you talking about?

Crime and poverty has always been a massive problem in every society. America was no different.

Go back to your dream world of America in the 1800s and look at places like the Five Points or the ghettos in NO. Read what Dickens wrote about the Points back in the day- makes today’s ghettos look like motherfucking carnivals. Find the stories about the Irish and Jewish ghettos, about the Italians when they first came over. This is a fairy tale land you’re talking about.

Maybe you should stop with the overblown hyperbole in your posts and concentrate on some actual stuff.

[quote]
It’s the type of “education” and the mountaintop gaze into the valley of despair that it engenders that is what I mean at least by the term elitist.[/quote]

Keep it simple man. Read more Hemingway and less crappy romance novels.

29

[quote]dtheyer wrote:
Dude, Barack Obama came from very humble beginnings. And I wouldn’t really call creating job and college preparatory programs in poor Chicago neighborhoods a “mountaintop gaze into the valley of despair”.[/quote]

Seriously. How can anybody seriously call Obama an elitist and Bush a ‘down-home’ Texan when Bush went to Yale and had every kind of conceivable advanatage and the backing of one of the most powerful families in America from day one? It makes no sense.

Education, whatever the instiution, does not = elitist. Growing up with a silver-spoon, in an ivory tower, divorced from the experiences of the common man MAY but does not NECESSAIRLy make one an elitist.

As far as the direct issue at hand goes, I do believe the media gave Obama a pass on issues they could have pressed more and did no such thing with Palin. There is a media biased. But what’s there is there. They can only highlight or downplay qualfications. They can’t truly portray people in a false light. Of of the Biden gaffers for example were noted if not focused on. I was certainly aware of them.

30

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

Elitists are those special self and mutually exalted individuals who have, in a classroom, solved the intolerable unfairness I have just concisely described. THEY will manipulate and sculpt a society and by God a world, where none are left to fail regardless of how ambitious their pursuit of failure may be. Of course this of necessity will also mean that none can be allowed to become TOO successful either.

Most of your post had nothing to do with what I asked, and I’m not addressing the BS rhetoric.[/quote]

You asked in essence, what makes someone an elitist? I gave my view.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
But your own definition contradicts what you’re saying. I know you people love to go on and on about college professors and their liberal tendencies- that’s fine. Some were too liberal for me, and not accepting of other views at all.

However, those are the people that solve things in the classroom. By your definition, no politician anywhere can be an elitist, because they’ve made a career of NOT being in the classroom, but being in the game. They are not solving things from somewhere far removed from what’s going on- they’re implementing and changing things to suit what’s going on and to try to correct the problems they are encountering.

Obama was a community organizer, then a state senator, then a US Senator. If anything, he’s been more in tune with things that go on in both the community and the statehouse then many of us.

Honestly, by your definition, there’s mostly elitists on this board- people who sit around, in a classroom or in their office, and tell everyone else how the government should be run… even though they’ve never had any part in it. [/quote]

No, you missed my point entirely. The classroom is the birthplace, breeding ground and training center. The battleground is society itself and is fought from positions of political power. Don’t you understand? Most of the problems they claim to be trying to solve are just not solvable, in the very nature of human reality, by government bureaucracies. The more “solving” they do the worse it gets because they see every single issue in terms of money and oversight. If we can just manipulate enough of both into the right hands we’ll be ok. The real problems start with families. One thing they cannot force. We’re back to the Franklin quote in the other thread.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
What’s amazing is that crime and poverty were a minuscule fraction of the problems they are today before this coerced community delusion really took hold. Some of the lowly clawed their way to mediocrity and many of the apparently mediocre squeezed excellence out of themselves. No more. A few hundred elitists in a far away city will take care of everything.

What in the fuck are you talking about?

Crime and poverty has always been a massive problem in every society. America was no different.

Go back to your dream world of America in the 1800s and look at places like the Five Points or the ghettos in NO. Read what Dickens wrote about the Points back in the day- makes today’s ghettos look like motherfucking carnivals. Find the stories about the Irish and Jewish ghettos, about the Italians when they first came over. This is a fairy tale land you’re talking about.

Maybe you should stop with the overblown hyperbole in your posts and concentrate on some actual stuff.[/quote]

I did not say that crime and poverty were not problems then and I know all about 5 points and other ghetto areas. Rural poverty as well and you make my point. Every society wrestles with them. Ours, while far from perfect, did the best overall job to date. However, violent crime rates across the board have skyrocketed, poverty, if we believe the statistics is worse than ever, but all this especially among those who have been the largest targets of all this social engineering.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
It’s the type of “education” and the mountaintop gaze into the valley of despair that it engenders that is what I mean at least by the term elitist.

Keep it simple man. Read more Hemingway and less crappy romance novels. [/quote]

I’ve never read either. I should say that I’m not one of these guys who thinks government, even federal government, shouldn’t do ANYTHING. There are some areas that can only be handled that way and some of them take money so there must be taxation as well. The liberal elitist instinct however, the immediate reaction to everything, is a program, department, somebody else’s money and now a czar all handled by them.

31

What you’re saying, Tiribulus, is that your definition of an elitist is a liberal. “It’s the type of “education” and the mountaintop gaze into the valley of despair that it engenders that is what I mean at least by the term elitist.” A rich, well-connected, well-educated conservative would not be “elitist” to you.

The trouble is, most people mean something else by “elitist.” Generally it means someone who was born into privilege and believes in the superiority of his class. Not all liberals fit that definition, and not all who fit that definition are liberals. Maybe there’s a correlation (though I’m not certain of that) but it certainly isn’t true that liberalism and elitism are one and the same thing.

By the way, violent crime has decreased in the past two decades. Crime in the United States - Wikipedia
Poverty declined markedly between 1959 and 1969 , from 22% to 12% and has remained, with some fluctuations, low since then. http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq3.htm. Since the proportion of racial minorities has risen since the '50’s (what I imagine you’re talking about when you say “the largest targets of all this social engineering”) it is impossible that minorities got poorer in the last half-century. Not that I have the confidence to say that the positive trends are the result of any particular government policy – it’s just untrue that we have gotten poorer and more violent as a nation. The opposite happened.

(Also, read Hemingway. I used to think I didn’t need to read him; I was wrong. The short stories are best.)

32

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

You asked in essence, what makes someone an elitist? I gave my view.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, it doesn’t match the definition of the word. You use a catchphrase spoonfed to you by… well, elitists… in order to describe the other side of the political spectrum, even though unfortunately it doesn’t make sense.

Alisa actually addressed this well- to you, they’re only elites if they’re liberals.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t make any sense.

Skyrocketed from when? From the days of the early American utopia that you all point to? The one where… well, they really didn’t keep records like they do now?

You have no idea if the rate has skyrocketed or not over the history of the country. But honestly- it’s not worse than ever. Not by a long shot. It’s actually dropped off alot in the last 15 years.

So… ah, you’re wrong.

Get on Hemingway.

Once again, there you go misusing that word. But that aside, sometimes these programs work, and sometimes they don’t. But it’s better than doing nothing. The fact that they are mismanaged has little to do with the political party in power.

On top of that, I will say AGAIN, that no one raises the size of the government and the deficit quite like a Republican does. So maybe it’s time for you to start your own party.

33

I have only have a minute at the moment.

Extreme oversimplification:

Conservatives: (at least my brand) More individuals and hence society as a whole functions best when people are left to act in their own interests and the interests of those they are directly responsible for within the law. THEY CAN do it if they will. If they won’t, tough shit.

Liberals: (Generally) Society as a community is responsible for society as a community. Everybody is better off if a few (elitists), who are qualified by ideological pedigree defined by having been exposed to the elevated circles usually found in prominent liberal schools, are given the responsibility of seeing to it that the community communes properly.

I may be departing from the strict traditional usage, but I see elitists as people who believe everybody else should be forced to implement and finance their morally superior vision for mankind. Against their will if necessary because they can’t help it if others aren’t up to their level of deep insight and compassion.

As a quick aside, the fact of whether something works or not does not necessarily sell me on it’s rightness or wrongness. Vigilantism sometimes delivers justice, but it is still wrong. Hell, robbery works. There’s a bunch of money I didn’t have before and I really needed it.

34

“Against their will if necessary because they can’t help it if others aren’t up to their level of deep insight and compassion.”

Right, because we don’t have elections in this country.

35

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I have only have a minute at the moment.

Extreme oversimplification:

Conservatives: (at least my brand) More individuals and hence society as a whole functions best when people are left to act in their own interests and the interests of those they are directly responsible for within the law. THEY CAN do it if they will. If they won’t, tough shit.

Liberals: (Generally) Society as a community is responsible for society as a community. Everybody is better off if a few (elitists), who are qualified by ideological pedigree defined by having been exposed to the elevated circles usually found in prominent liberal schools, are given the responsibility of seeing to it that the community communes properly.

I may be departing from the strict traditional usage, but I see elitists as people who believe everybody else should be forced to implement and finance their morally superior vision for mankind. Against their will if necessary because they can’t help it if others aren’t up to their level of deep insight and compassion.

As a quick aside, the fact of whether something works or not does not necessarily sell me on it’s rightness or wrongness. Vigilantism sometimes delivers justice, but it is still wrong. Hell, robbery works. There’s a bunch of money I didn’t have before and I really needed it.[/quote]

So, why aren’t social conservatives elitists? Many of them believe everybody else should be forced to implement and their morally superior vision for mankind. Against their will if necessary because they can’t help it if others aren’t up to their level of deep insight and compassion, righteousness, and moral superiority.

36

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
What you’re saying, Tiribulus, is that your definition of an elitist is a liberal. “It’s the type of “education” and the mountaintop gaze into the valley of despair that it engenders that is what I mean at least by the term elitist.” A rich, well-connected, well-educated conservative would not be “elitist” to you.

The trouble is, most people mean something else by “elitist.” Generally it means someone who was born into privilege and believes in the superiority of his class. Not all liberals fit that definition, and not all who fit that definition are liberals. Maybe there’s a correlation (though I’m not certain of that) but it certainly isn’t true that liberalism and elitism are one and the same thing.

By the way, violent crime has decreased in the past two decades. Crime in the United States - Wikipedia
Poverty declined markedly between 1959 and 1969 , from 22% to 12% and has remained, with some fluctuations, low since then. http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq3.htm. Since the proportion of racial minorities has risen since the '50’s (what I imagine you’re talking about when you say “the largest targets of all this social engineering”) it is impossible that minorities got poorer in the last half-century. Not that I have the confidence to say that the positive trends are the result of any particular government policy – it’s just untrue that we have gotten poorer and more violent as a nation. The opposite happened.

(Also, read Hemingway. I used to think I didn’t need to read him; I was wrong. The short stories are best.)[/quote]

ding ding ding 100% on the nose. Great post.

37

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
I have only have a minute at the moment.

Extreme oversimplification:

Conservatives: (at least my brand) More individuals and hence society as a whole functions best when people are left to act in their own interests and the interests of those they are directly responsible for within the law. THEY CAN do it if they will. If they won’t, tough shit.

Liberals: (Generally) Society as a community is responsible for society as a community. Everybody is better off if a few (elitists), who are qualified by ideological pedigree defined by having been exposed to the elevated circles usually found in prominent liberal schools, are given the responsibility of seeing to it that the community communes properly.

I may be departing from the strict traditional usage, but I see elitists as people who believe everybody else should be forced to implement and finance their morally superior vision for mankind. Against their will if necessary because they can’t help it if others aren’t up to their level of deep insight and compassion.

As a quick aside, the fact of whether something works or not does not necessarily sell me on it’s rightness or wrongness. Vigilantism sometimes delivers justice, but it is still wrong. Hell, robbery works. There’s a bunch of money I didn’t have before and I really needed it.

So, why aren’t social conservatives elitists? Many of them believe everybody else should be forced to implement and their morally superior vision for mankind. Against their will if necessary because they can’t help it if others aren’t up to their level of deep insight and compassion, righteousness, and moral superiority.
[/quote]

Because they’re not liberals, and if he can’t attack liberals for being elitists, then he’s got nothing.

38

This discussion started out great, but has gone astray.

There are ‘elitists’ in every camp. Elitism doesn’t have one political leaning.

I think as far as media and media personalities go, there is a perceived ‘hollywood elitsism’ that leans far left. Because of that, their views are perpetuated in a much greater proportion of media than other sources. For example, Matt Damon and Leo DeCaprio who are without a doubt, bumbling fools, have their views perpetuated in news, entertainment, and tabloid media because of their star power (yes, sadly, tabloids are where many folks get their political insights).

There is certainly an element of ‘social elitism’ there.

Al Gore has attained both ‘star’ and ‘intellectual’ elitism by virtue of his Nobel award. His movie, full of bad science and skewed informaion was hyped to no end. Most of the information in the movie has been credibly refuted, yet you really have to dig to find that information, as the news isn’t readily airing the refutations in such massive quantities as the original information. With his ‘elite’ status, he pushes his agenda, most recently in the news pushing for ‘global governance’ of climate change.

Media bias isn’t only about what is reported. It’s mostly about what’s not reported.

Let’s get this back on track. Irish-- C’mon, “Pig” for Palin? That’s where the discussion degrades. On the two political forums that I moderate, you wouldn’t get one post in like that. While I don’t agree with a lot of what you post politically, you do make some great counterpoints and contributions. You only degrade the discussion when you go low like that. That’s the kind of thing that keeps me from posting here.

39

OK, me, as a college prof will get into the fray.

Most of the media is left-leaning because of the fact that they went to universities and had majors (like Journalism) that are essentially extensions of the English department. I point out the the two most consistently poorly performing schools in any university are Journalism and Education – which are supposed to be the cornerstone of a free, democratic nation.

Now let me give you the single most alarming thing I know as it relates to modern education. The story starts about 1904 with a horrific mining disaster. Several men went in to rescue the miners knowing it was probably a lethal situation and they too died.

Andrew Carnegie was so impressed that he set up a find, known as the Carnegie Hero Fund to reward people for saving their fellow man. It is still running and has the most complete set of statistics available for people whom we would call heros.

A change has occurred since its inception. Over the last few decades of over 300 recipients, there is only one single factor that unites them. Only 4 (roughly 1%) attended a university. Yes that is right. Even though 40% of the population receives higher education, 99% of the people who will put themselves on the line for others do not have this.

There are many cases of people rescuing others while dozens stand around snapping photos. I’m telling you as a professional educator that this heavily points to the fact that something is very seriously wrong with what happens to people ethics once they go through a university. Mind you, it was not that way in the earlier days of the fund where the percentages did not reflect educational background.

Generally if someone with a university degree (includes Journalists) is telling me about “doing the right thing” I simply assume they have some agenda behind it and an armload of sophistries to rationalize it.

I also remember a good friend of mine who lost nearly 100 friends and relatives in Rawanda. She told me that the Hutus that were doing the killing were from the cities and were usually educated since only they could form the abstract hatreds needed for butchery.

“To commit atrocities you must believe absurdities” as Voltaire so pungently put it. A sad scenario in the countryside was Hutu farmers trying to protect their Tutsi neighbors getting hacked to death by Hutus who were bussed in to do the killing.

Discuss.

And I might just be full of shit…

– jj

40

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
I have only have a minute at the moment.

Extreme oversimplification:

Conservatives: (at least my brand) More individuals and hence society as a whole functions best when people are left to act in their own interests and the interests of those they are directly responsible for within the law. THEY CAN do it if they will. If they won’t, tough shit.

Liberals: (Generally) Society as a community is responsible for society as a community. Everybody is better off if a few (elitists), who are qualified by ideological pedigree defined by having been exposed to the elevated circles usually found in prominent liberal schools, are given the responsibility of seeing to it that the community communes properly.

I may be departing from the strict traditional usage, but I see elitists as people who believe everybody else should be forced to implement and finance their morally superior vision for mankind. Against their will if necessary because they can’t help it if others aren’t up to their level of deep insight and compassion.

As a quick aside, the fact of whether something works or not does not necessarily sell me on it’s rightness or wrongness. Vigilantism sometimes delivers justice, but it is still wrong. Hell, robbery works. There’s a bunch of money I didn’t have before and I really needed it.

So, why aren’t social conservatives elitists? Many of them believe everybody else should be forced to implement and their morally superior vision for mankind. Against their will if necessary because they can’t help it if others aren’t up to their level of deep insight and compassion, righteousness, and moral superiority.
[/quote]

What we today loosely call social conservatism was the presuppositional bedrock the form of government that ultimately emerged from the revolution was built upon. A veritable fortress could be erected from the writings of the men of that day declaring exactly that. Even the ones who claimed no religious affiliation or particular conviction.

It never so much as crossed their minds that what they were doing would somehow one day be alleged to promote same sex marriage, the transformation of their country into a national whorehouse (which is directly responsible for the destruction of the family) and the mass murdering of millions of it’s unborn future citizens in the name of hedonistic convenience. Self determination and limited government would function only as long as and to the degree with which that societal consensus remained.

All that said, the force of law, if it were even possible anymore, cannot provide that bedrock. It was precisely the voluntary self determined nature of that social consensus that kept government at bay. That’s how it was designed.

Legislated morality is no morality at all. It cannot be forced at the point of statute or court ruling. Banning gay marriage, reversing roe v. wade and all the censorship one can imagine will do nothing but further divide this country. The fact that we have to seriously debate issues like this is itself the earthquake that is crumbling the bedrock.

All the other issues of the size and intrusive power of government and all that that encompasses are merely symptoms of that earthquake.

Call that whatever you want. Absolutely nothing could be clearer to me.