A Hillary Clinton advocate and long-time Democrat, Alan Dershowitz was tossed from CNN airwaves and tossed to more conservative Fox News programs. What happened?
To answer why the media had a change of heart about the renowned legal scholar, let’s start with what the media actually is – a cadre of would-be journalists who are hopelessly quicksanded into progressive ideology preventing them from actual reporting. The media would be the first to condemn that characterization, claiming they are indeed fair. Just look at their stash of Pulitzer prizes.
But let’s test that characterization. What is progressivism all about? Back in the Age of Enlightenment, its founder Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel said man could become god and over time a government made up of the best of the best could lead the rest of humanity to that state. To achieve this the masses needed to conform and obey the leadership of the elite. In this fashion history would not constantly repeat itself, but would always march toward that perfect state.
What a great concept: God was unnecessary since only an elite government with the power to become God was required to lead a conforming society. Secularism, collectivism, an elitist government that controlled everything from property ownership to individual thought marked the path to perfection. Socialism or even Marxism encapsulates progressive principles. Compare that to conservative principles: religion, limited participatory government, individualism and capitalism. Democracy embodies these principles. Progressives then want socialism; conservatives want democracy.
Fast forward to the 1960s. Herbert Marcuse and Saul Alinsky led the charge of the New Left, the iconoclastic “anti-establishment:” the status quo had to go. The target was conservatives because that was where American values resided. Their mission – eliminate God, ethics and morality, rule of law and even the Constitution. Marcuse taught students at the time to be tolerant of everyone but conservatives and to be truly free, they needed to release themselves from the chains of ethics and morality. A few years later , Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, said that conservatives should be frozen, isolated and ridiculed until they disappeared. He also said that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it to be true. Hoping for a revolution against traditional America, their teachings gave rise to a divide and conquer strategy called “identity politics.” This strategy pits white male Christians (the oppressors) against everyone else (the oppressed).
Since the 1960s the media have been weaned on Marcuse/Alinsky logic. For the most part today’s journalists are progressive. As Daniel Sutter, who examined the issue of the biased media, discovered, “People with the talent, temperament, and personality to be journalists might also be inclined toward liberal political causes.” Statistics bear this out. As far back as 1976, nearly 95 percent of journalists voted Democrat. A more recent study showed that 90 percent of the White House press corps are liberal and an Indiana University poll showed that only seven percent of journalists voted Republican.
Progressive reporters actually view the world in terms of secular liberalism. Progressives color the news with their own secular values and dismiss morality and religion. More importantly, liberal reporters honestly think that those who believe as they do are by definition rational and liberal, and those who do not are by definition irrational and repressive. This belief structure is designed not to promote balanced truth, but divide the country into those who are right about things – the elite – and those who aren’t – “deplorables,” as Hillary Clinton coined the term.
If the media is blatantly progressive and dismisses anything they deem as “irrational and repressive,” journalists will report only news that meets their requirements for “rational and liberal.” If news is supposed to present the facts, for most reporters and pundits truth becomes whatever meets those two requirements. Unfortunately not all “truths” fit their definitions or meet their requirements of rational and liberal. By selectively ignoring facts and offering news that is intentionally bias to discredit or denigrate someone or a group, journalists report untruth at worst or skew the truth at best, commonly called “fake news.” Journalists and pundits, though, don’t seem to care about their fabrications since, as Alinsky advised, if you repeat something often enough ultimately it will be accepted as truth.
This media profile has been in the works for far longer than the 1960s, but it has been particularly apparent since that time. To discover why, look no further than where journalists are taught their trade. During this same period academia has also become overwhelmingly progressive. In 1968 the ratio of liberal to conservative professors was three to one; in 2017, it was 11 to one.
The media has always been rough on conservative presidents: Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes. But with the coming of Barack Obama, progressives saw their opportunity to really change this country. And Obama didn’t disappoint. He opened the borders as far as he could, appointed a bunch of activist judges, and pushed the global progressive agenda to where Democrats thought it would be virtually impossible to reverse. The United Nations, which had tried to take down the United States for the better part of 60 years, was thrilled as America was about to relinquish its sovereignty on the environment, guns and immigration.
But Donald Trump’s escalator announcement triggered something especially heinous in the media. First of all, they considered him a joke who would never win. But when he did, the air in the progressive balloon didn’t just leak out; it blew out. In his book The Witch Hunt, Gregg Jarrett documents the incredible number of phony stories based on anonymous sources that have plagued the news for over three years. Despite their sloppy work, though, the media has not apologized one bit for its disgraceful performance. Instead taking their cue from Democrat Congressional leaders, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, those in the media staunchly proclaim their innocence and insist that their reporting is all about defending American principles, the rule of law and the Constitution.
What a collective lie, but the Dershowitz betrayal exposed the extent of their mendacity. This expose was particularly apparent when one of the professor’s former students confronted him. Jeffrey Toobin said, “What is going on with you…in every situation over the past year, you have been carrying water for Donald Trump.” To which Dershowitz replied, “I’m not carrying water. I am saying the exact same thing I’ve said for 50 years.” The legal scholar was defending Trump not because of who the president is, but because Democrats were violating the rule of law and the Constitution in tormenting Trump they way they were.
As Jarrett said, “Dershowitz had committed ideological treason.” What the teacher was trying to say, but the student just couldn’t grasp was that he, Dershowitz, was a “democratic Democrat.” A Democrat who embraced traditional American values and institutions. To the new social Democrats, the legendary law professor was a walking, talking contradiction. For this the media, led by CNN’s leader Jeff Zucker, ditched him from progressive programming.
What does this tell us about the media and the new Democrat party in general? Sadly there is no room in the party for democracy-minded Democrats. You will know the answer to that question if you understand the biggest lie, of so many, that Democrats have told over the past three plus years: they must overthrow President Trump in order to defend and uphold the Constitution.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Don’t believe Pelosi or Schumer for a nanosecond when they pontificate in the name of the rule of law or the Constitution. Since the days of Obama Democrats have systematically upended the rule of law and bastardized the Constitution. They are progressives and as pointed out earlier, they oppose everything the Constitution represents. They want to take guns away, find conservatives guilty until they can prove their innocence, levy a two-pronged justice system, ignore federal law at will with sanctuary cities, rescind presidential authority, misinterpret the First Amendment, etc.
Donald Trump simply ignited the hatred they have harbored for America since the 1960s. Their ideology is “the doctrine of the anti-establishment.” Their furor opposes a nationalist who is all about improving America and the lives of Americans and the more he does so, the more they hate him for it. And why? Because it contradicts their entire belief system.
The doctrine of anti-establishment is not opposition to what is classically known as “the establishment.” Attacking the establishment of the 1960s was a pretense for the New Left; their real target was much more profound: the core of American values. With the Vietnam War, the assassination of John Kennedy and the civil rights issue then, radicals of that period saw a real opportunity to defy those values and once again the centuries-old Hegelian formula that promised but could never deliver human perfection. Each attempt through the ages required the elimination of human imperfections and the creation of a super race, both of which are unobtainable. A hundred years ago progressives thought social Darwinism held the key, but groups like the Ku Klux Klan and Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood fell woefully short. Regardless, the elite of generation after generation pursues this mission which sadly demands ruthless measures with each attempt: collectivism, socialism, an all controlling government and a compliant media to ensure censorship of opposing thought. And while that evasive perfection has always alluded its pursuers, dictatorial power has not. If the elite cannot perfect the world, controlling it is the next best thing…perhaps the only thing. And that is really what the progressives want now: control of America.
Ironically after nearly 70 years of careful cultivation, the establishment – despite the likes and sagacity of Alan Dershowitz – has at long last embraced the progressive doctrine. While the president still clings to American principles, the establishment – now global and progressive in nature – controls America’s narrative, starting with academia and media indoctrination. If they could only get rid of the nationalist New Yorker, their path would be clear to disembowel the United States and fashion yet another miserable plan leading not to human perfection but to one more colossal failure.