Alden Swan dot com

Argumentum ad nauseam is a logical fallacy – an attempt to make someone believe something is true by merely stating it over, and over, and over … well, you get the idea. Unfortunately, instead of making you nauseous, it actually works. It is, therefore, a standard element of propaganda.

It has also been a standard – and almost exclusive – element of liberal rhetoric for the last 3-4 years, especially having to do with all things Iraq. Most people didn’t believe John Kerry when he used them in his campaign, but I still hear those same things said over and over. It doesn’t matter that some of these people contradict their own earlier opinions and statements. It doesn’t matter that the facts don’t support the allegations. It doesn’t even seem to matter that these “inaccuracies” were not believed in the past.

Why? Because more people are believing them now, simply because they’ve heard them so often. It’s also because conservatives have failed to be as agressive as they should be with the facts. They’ve misunderestimated the power of ad nauseam rhetoric, and the incredible tendency of the public to be manipulated.

Liberals are simply much better at manipulating the media and public opinion; it comes down to a fundamental difference in worldview. If you accept that truth is relative – if you start questioning the definition of “is” – then your worldview allows you to say that you believe in truth, while at the same time completely ignoring the facts. However, if your worldview is more conservative, holding to more absolute definitions of things like truth, they you have a much harder time. Even though you want to manipulate facts, your own worldview works against you; you become internally conflicted, and failure is inevitable.

Therefore, liberals are able to accuse and ridicule conservatives for deceit and manipulation of information – whether or not it is true – while at the same time being guity of the very same thing, and still be consistent with their worldview. This is why liberals and conservatives are so very rarely able to actually carry on a meaningful dialog. It’s a “Mars – Venus” issue. Conservatives and liberals have such disparate worldviews that they don’t really even speak the same language.

This is not to say that liberals always manipulate facts, or that conservatives don’t – there are good and bad on both sides. However it is important to recognize the difference in philosophy when interpreting their rhetoric. In the case of the war in Iraq, the facts – that is, what was believed and what was said prior to the invasion – are being buried by ad nauseam and other fallacious arguments by the left, and these core issues seemingly ignored by the right. Finally, however, the administration appears to be waking up.

I see things so clearly. To me, the truth is usually quite obvious. As a result, it’s extremely frustrating to read or listen to the news, or anyone else’s opinions on anything, because no one apparently sees things quite as clearly as I do. The world would be so much better if everyone had my sense of sight. The problem is, of course, that so many people think that they can see clearly – if they only knew.

If you could see me, you’d of course know that I am writing with tongue-in-cheek. (I find that writing tongue-in-cheek is so much easier than speaking tongue-in-cheek – I am not terribly coordinated, and end up biting my tongue more often than not.) However, I obviously think my opinions are more correct than any other; otherwise, I’d have different opinions.

So, here’s a few clear-sighted opinions to brighten up your day and make your world a better place:

• Why is everyone so upset about this Joe Wilson / Valerie Plame thing? Remember, we’re dealing with the CIA here! No one likes, or trusts, the CIA. They are the bad guys in nearly every movie in which they are featured. We all know that they don’t follow anyone’s rules, except in public. Their job is to manipulate information, and they are on no one’s side but their own. We all think that, right? So, why, all of a sudden, are we feeling sorry for these people? They don’t need a Special Investigator, except to manipulate more information. And besides, Valerie Plame’s secret identity had already been revealed – and she wasn’t covert any longer, having been “outed” on at least 2 occasions by the CIA itself, and possibly even by old Joe Wilson.
• Why do people think Scooter Libby has been indicted for outing Valerie Plame? Don’t people read or listen anymore?
• Last week I watched Chris Matthews on Hardball talking with Deborah Orin from the NY Post. Matthews was, or at least pretended to be, shocked to hear that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent. We’ve all known that for ages – where has Chris Matthews been? I used to think he was intelligent, but apparently he only reads his own stuff. Maybe if he’d watch Fox News once in a while, he’d know what was going on.
• I love Boston Legal, in spite of it’s typically liberal slant. Of course, it’s set in Boston, so the liberal slant is probably fitting. In fact, I find it hard to believe that a law firm in Boston would actually have 2 conservative partners. The Halloween show (aired 11-1) was, in my opinion, great. I thought it’s treatment of Christians and Wiccans suing a school over a Halloween celebration was well done. I also (surprisingly) liked their treatment of a suit against the military for misrepresentation over its recuitment practices, although as you might expect, it was filled with false information and speeches borrowed from John Kerry’s failed campaign. William Shatner (“Denny Crane“), in spite of having “mad cow disease” and some other issues, does a good job of portraying someone with a sincerely conservative heart. Overall, the show came off as questioning Iraq, but generally supportive of the military.
• As part of his court arguments (in the afore-mentioned Boston Legal episode), Alan Shore asks why the media is not showing any of the war in Iraq, commenting that the casulaties there are for the most part being ignored. That is a great point, and it got me thinking. Why, indeed, is there so little coverage from the liberal media about what’s actually happening in Iraq? I can draw two conclusions:
  1. They don’t think people are interested. But, since the media tends to create its own demand, and they tend to be driven more these days by philosophy than by money (can you believe that?), this is probably not the reason.
  2. To actually show what is happening in Iraq does not fit with their agenda. I think this is probably the case – they would rather rehash old John Kerry lines and media-created myths than actually show what’s happening. People might actually see that the soldiers are proud of what they are doing, and feel like they are accomplishing something. People might see that the Iraqis are generally excited about freedom, and actually want our troops there while they pull the government together. People might have seen a greater voter turnout – in spite of threatened violence – than we have over here! No, that wouldn’t fit with the liberal media’s agenda – which is essentially to get conservatives out of power – at all.

See, what did I tell you? Clear, concise thinking. 😉