A key component of the concerted agitation to bring on change was Chomsky's accusation that the hated Bush used fear mongering to manufacture consent.
In theory, since that hated Bush is on the scrap heap of history, change should have elevated us beyond fear mongering.
It is possible that Chomsky is nothing but a partisan who agitates by projecting the method onto his opponents.
Anyway, I love this clip from Pelosi. The math is mind boggling. If we are losing 500 million jobs a month because of the hated Bush, then we will wipe out all jobs in the US for the this and the next generation before the quarter is through.
Your "logical" connections are simply astounding.
You need to rethink this argument, it doesn't even make sense, and neglects a very large chunk of reality and recent history.
Fear mongering may be on a decline (finally) but you make it evident that critical thinking is still suffering in this country.
Let's see: Noam Chomsky, the most quoted author since Marx, wrote a book called "Manufacturing Consent" wrote a book accusing his partisan opponents (the hated Republicans) of using fear-monging to manufacture consent.
Barack Obama wrote a book called "The Audacity of Hope" and ran a change campaign claiming that a changed regime would overcome the fear-monging of the hated Republicans.
I place a YouTube video showing one of the many outrageous claims of doom that will take place if we don't pass the first major bill of the changed regime.
I think the post provides a rich field from which one can make interesting speculative arguments.
For example, in writing his book, Chomsky may have been manufacturing discontent. Perhaps the heading of the post is wrong. Perhaps ridding ourselves of the hated Republicans did not rid ourselves of fear mongering.
One conclusion cannot be made. One cannot make the conclusion that Progressives are hypocrites, become one must have principles to be a hypocrite.
Post a Comment