Just caught a glimpse of Sean Hannity on Fox tonight - I thought I was watching a remake of Triumph of the Will.
Apocalyptic "Omen" music playing in the background ... Democrats pressing for the stimulus package, proud when it passed ... Republicans heroically standing up against it ... fighting against -
Socialism in America!
Images bathed in red, Hannity raving on about socalism, except -
Socialism is the government nationalizing, owning, taking over industry. No private ownership, no corporations, no private enterprise.
How is the stimulus package anything like that, close to it, even moving towards it? The government is loaning money to the auto companies and the banks. When it makes money available for building of infrastructure, that money will be going to companies such as Caterpillar, which will be hiring more workers, etc.
No government ownership.
Words have meaning. As George Orwell made frighteningly clear in 1984, the path to totalitarian strangling of liberty and decency resides, in significant part, in striping language of its meaning - war is peace, freedom is slavery - with an eye towards confusing the public.
No, this country is not moving towards socialism at all.
But displays such as Hannity's are about as far as I've ever seen anything on American media veer towards Nazi and Communist modes of propaganda.
18 comments:
I suggest you look up Walter Williams, Professor of Economics at George Mason University.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
For any one group to be "stimulated", another must be "unstimulated".
Where do you think all the money for Dear Leader's "stimulus" is going to come from?
And yes, redistribution of wealth from those that earn it to those that do not IS socialism.
I've got news for you J.J.: just because you insist that a word means something it does not, and type the "is" in all caps, does not prove your argument.
America has been redistributing wealth since before there was a Soviet Union - since as long as we have had an income tax. Indeed, it could be argued that any taxation of any kind is wealth redistribution.
That does not make it socialism.
As I said in my blog post, socialism is the government taking over and ending all private and corporate enterprise. Do a little reading.
As for where the money for the stimulus package will come from: it will come from many sources, including raising taxes on the rich (not socialism), borrowing money from foreign nations (also not socialism), etc.
I'm not even saying that I support, for example, borrowing money from foreign governments. But, again, it is not socialism.
I can't even watch Fox News. I get headaches.
The 20th Centuryy has taught us the need to be vigilant about words. I remember back when they turned "Liberal" into a dirty word by simply repeating in a negative context.
socialism isn't even the worst part, bondage and eternal debt and slavery for a once free country - now that should make you weep for America!
I did not see the Hannity speech you re talking about as I stopped hearing of mr. hannity when hannity and colmes ended. But I definitevely know the communication trick you re talking about when you talk of "striping language of its meaning"
There's a word for such poor behavior:"resentment". Richard Weisberg back in the 80's defined it really well in his Law and Literature book,"Vichy Law and the Holocaust in France," then later published in 1996 by New York University Press in which he claims that during the Vichy regime during WWII a french lawyer called Joseph Haennig allowed a larger and easier jewish prosecution by changing commas and periods within the french legal texts, basically by changing the definition of jewishness, he managed to alterate meaning through the change of a few words sometimes even commas of the french laws. This little grammar operation opened the door to the racial prosecution. Today the alteration process has switched its operating channel, from the legislative branch to the media channels. But the results is just the same. Indeed Mr. Hannity has a big big weakness he does not know history, he does not know literature, he generally doesn't know what he's talking about...
that's why he needs the help of a rich graphics with red flags waving in the background, he needs to create an entire new world to justify his empty resentment....history repeating...
Why is it so hard to see that ALL money is "distributed"? For instance, if the execs of a company make a gazillion dollars, it's somebody's money - usually yours and mine (meaning all of us). If prices rise (perhaps to match rising salaries), then more of MY money is going into the pockets of execs. And it isn't by choice. We must have utilities and products to live. I'd much rather pay taxes than pay one of Sam Walton's greedy heirs.
Excellent comment, Gianluca - thanks!
Good point, anon. (If possible, it would be better if you could use a pseudonym - it can get confusing when we have more than one anonymous commenter.)
Sandra - "eternal" debt? So you are, what, a time traveler? You might enjoy my novel, The Plot to Save Socrates...
Thank you Paul.
I just reported my perception paradoxally as a non-viewer but
once you watch one of these shows you have watched them all.
Indeed the saddest part of the story I think is the one I would love to bring up here and concerns the very reason of such a totally out-of-context claim of socialism.
After such a statement,it is obvious Hannity is unable to make a reasoned reply due to a chronic lack of substantial arguments and no imagination at all
(except for the set design and the music).
He can only play the ideological
card because it's easy and waving flags on tv are always tremendously appealing.
The point here is that apparently there is no point. So the very reason for such a meaningless statement should be something else and the first explanation I have thought of,is a combination of two significant facts in his professional life that I am reporting here:
1) As the No. 2 radio talk-show host in America, Hannity signed a five-year contract in July 2008 said to be worth "about $100 million.
2) After leaving KCSB, Hannity placed an ad in radio publications presenting himself as "the most talked about college radio host in America.
I think these two facts here explain quiet well the apparent pointless claim of socialism that Hannity made on his show. He needs to run a show every single day because of his ego, his greed and mostly because of his multi-million dollar contract with Fox (he's not that different from any of us and I am not judging him because of this)
In order to satisfy all these needs he must possess an easy audience strategy that has to be within his reach. I would say after this socialism thing, he's adopted the "shock and awe".....because it's easy, it's appealing and most of all it
always works on tv. That's it.
But what if we are all wrong? what if Hannity is not shaken by his producer under the table who pulls his legs asking him something new or crazy just to catch the viewer's attention ... or by his enormous ego...but instead his
statement of socialism has someting true that is shaking his political heart from the very depth and inside of it?
After all this talk about this political and media genius, I thought maybe there is a chance
he might actually be reasonably frightened by socialism somehow...
And here we go: Just think of what would happen to Hannity if tomorrow Fox network will ask
and obtain financial support from a future stimulous bill made by Obama? I know is a very remote hypothesis but just think of what Hannity would feel like!!!
It would be the worst nightmare ever for him...as it represents
everything he's been fighting against for all of his life....and he could not keep running his show and he should quit....or he should change his mind...that's an
impossible choice, with frightening options...with definitevely no way out for him!!!!!
And that's why he's probably so scared by the socialist stimulous bills, he doesn't want to become part of it, he does not want to become socialist neither he wants to hear anything like that never in his all life!!!!!
And I completely understand him.
Even if in my opinion he still can make a great career change and go work as set decorator or even art director maybe...
P.S.
your Educated Tastes section is really something great, now understand why time traveler Jeff Harris says papaya drinks are delicious... maybe you
should make a blog just on the city best eating spots even if my philosophy is better to keep the better of them secret....
And exactly where does that 100 million for Sean come from? A magic tree?
(I'm Anon from above - couldn't get logged in before).
Rachel
no they come from Premiere Radio Networks. 100 millions for 5 years deal, check it out yourself:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/sean-hannity-gets-100-mil_n_114026.html
There's nothing wrong with VOLUNTARY wealth distribution. However, if I come into your house with a gun and take all your money of force, that is wrong - even if I plan to donate all of that money to good causes. Yet somehow we find this acceptable when government does it via taxation.
anon - so I take it, then, that you're against all taxation?
How, then, would you pay for police and firefighters? And our military?
What say you about the communism in "Of Plymouth Plantation" and the results? "Redistribution" of wealth by another word is communism. Comming from a family in poverty, this country provides more potential & incentive to work hard & seek the unbelievable opportunities provided. In any other socialist or communist country, I would merely have wished for my next day's bread. Have you visited any of the communist or socialist countries after socialism/communism has been well established? People have no hope. You can see it in their eyes and it is quite frightening to see us slipping into those lies & promises of free lunches- quite impossible. We are already partially socialist welfare state; the stimlus package tips the scale to a point those of us who have witnessed the consequences fear. Talk to some Cubans. It'll do you good & you don't even have to leave the country. They left Cuba to avoid this.
If redistribution of wealth is communism, that would mean we've been communist since the income tax in 1912, and in fact from the very beginning of our nation.
Fortunately, communism is about government ending private enterprise, not redistributing wealth, so we're not communist.
Hey, Gianluca - forgot to mention - really glad you like the new food blog ... I just put up a new post about an-all-but-lost NYC treat on Educated Tastes... (I'm following your philosophy - this post won't jeopardize that great food, because it's just about already gone...)
Actually, we are a mixed economy, meaning we do have some characteristics of a centrally planned government. There is no such thing as a purely capitalistic society in today's world and no one is denying that government is necessary. Here are a few of the items in the HRRA that pull us further toward the socialistic welfare state:
- Amendment to the Homeowners Assistance Program- this amendment helps real estate gamblers recoop losses for homes they were not supposed to buy.
- encourages people to remain unemployed
- Expands welfare programs through a multitude of programs
- Bails Western states out of problems encountered when they tried to excercise too much control of private industry & expands government controls at all levels of energy production and distribution.
- Intervenes to prevent failing businesses and non-profit arts programs from going under.
- Regulates aspects of the health-care industry
- Installs price and wage controls throughout private industry (you know, the same type of controls that destroyed the california energy industry) and returns to protectionist policies which decimated our industrial and manufacturing base in the first place.
The entire bill expands government controls on both public and private programs and redistributes income- we can find many examples in history of how that doesn't work, however noble our intentions. You can deny we are moving further toward socialism all you want and refuse to acknowledge past failures, but it doesn't make it so. The fear is that history will repeat itself, our GDP will level off and begin to decline, more people will be encouraged not to work (continuing the decline of our relatively high workforce participation rate), and the standard of living will be lowered for all. Many still believe we should be encouraging entrepreneurship, initiative, industry, responsibility and accountability. This bill encourages the opposite. I wish I could say that this will be a really good experiment & there is nothing to fear, however, again history demonstrates that countries rarely pull back from socialist leanings as the system feeds on itself to continue to grow, until finally the entire system collapses.
How can a party that continually professess to support the "common man" show so little faith in basic human nature?
A few responses:
1. Again, those items are not "pulling" us to a socialist state - any more than sleep pulls us towards death. In fact, sleep replenishes our energy so we can be awake and live better. Government spending in times of crisis does the same for the capitalist economy.
2. But, in fact, I don't feel the same about all the items you list. I think government support of health care, as we discussed, is great. I think wage and price controls are a bad idea.
3. But the overwhelming point is that, with the exception of health care, none of the items you list need be permanent.
I'm sad we didn't have a leni reifenstahl reference in this whole piece.
can we really reference triumph of the will without her?
I vote no.
be careful dr levinson, about permanence. the government is loath to give up any power it acquires. you know this better than most.
say what you will about FDR and how society eventually corrected itself, or Reagan and how the clock was reset. Every major increase in Government size has been just that- an increase in government size. That does not go down.
as a matter of fact, no matter what the economy is doing, the US government is the only entity that is continually making new jobs.
how's this years crop?
Post a Comment