Politics is the art of deception. The successful are master manipulators of
language and perception. They are a combination
carnival barker and magician and we, the perceived country bumpkins, are the
mark. Back in the day, politicians
campaigned with a wink and a nod. It was
all about a good show and sometimes you have to laugh at the antics of some of
these characters. North Carolina has had
its share. Senator Robert Reynolds is
one of them. Here is an excerpt from Rob
Christensen’s The Paradox of Tar Heel Politics:
Reynolds left Asheville in the guise of a poverty-stricken
man of the people. He donned a ragged
suit and worn shoes and drove a broken-down Tin Lizzie. Before entering a town, Reynolds often
emptied his radiator so that when he arrived steam would be pouring from under
the hood. Feigning poverty, Reynolds
asked the crowd for gas money to help him get to the next town, or borrowed an
automobile, or asked for a place to stay since he could not afford a
hotel. He would take a couple of dollar bills
out of his pocket and wave it to the crowd, calling on God to witness that it
was all the money he had in the world.
So phony were his pleas of poverty, Reynolds never bothered to cash
hundreds of the small campaign checks he was given although he framed some as
campaign souvenirs.
Bob Reynolds was a character and he genuinely liked
the people. We can’t say the same of
today’s politicians. Today’s politicians
are elite, paternalistic snobs who aren’t content on lying and deceiving the
public; they want to run our lives. They’ve
transitioned from sideshow Bob to an Orwellian mind controller.
This attitude is pervasive throughout Washington
D.C., progressive think tanks, and academia.
According to our wannabe overlords, the people are the problem and if we
don’t agree with their world view, the people have to be re-educated or nudged
by psychological assaults on common sense and decency.
National Interest.org published an article about elitist
attitudes on the great unwashed:
How? By replacing the elite’s
language. If you look back at the articles I cited, you'll see a common
language. A language not of rational discussion, of pros and cons, but of
psychology. A writer explains the public based on its emotional or intellectual
qualities. "The public is angry,” or "the people are ignorant.” In other cases, such as when discussing Trump's
supporters, the writer will usually use adjectives from psychology. "The
Republican nominee is manipulative, his supporters xenophobic." You will rarely find a writer addressing the arguments
against the elites plans and values. Why is that? Well, if the people are
ignorant, they should be educated. If they are angry, they should be medicated.
We do not need to address people's concern about immigrants, because their
concern is xenophobic and—again—ignorant. The language of psychology opens no
discussion. In the writer's mind he is a therapist, helping his opponent
understand the hidden reasons for his arguments. Once the opponent recognize
his problem, he can be treated, “educated.”
Educated?
They mean re-educated. That’s how
totalitarian regimes handle a recalcitrant citizenry. And it all began with; ‘It depends on what your
definition of “is” is.’
Source:
