Why Conservatives Must Challenge the Lies and Narratives of the Left

Why We Must Stand

I am frequently asked why it is that I bother debunking the arguments of obvious leftist shills, or establishment hacks.  The reasoning of those who ask me this question is approximately: “The people who fall for it aren’t inclined to support conservatives or conservatism anyway, so why bother?”  I think this is a serious mistake, and it has a companion that asks: “Why would we stoop to responding to these vile people?”  As a conservative, my answer for these questions is simplicity itself: I believe in the truth, and doing what is right, and I don’t think that permitting lies to propagate is a proposition that serves my interests, the interests of my family,  friends, or neighbors, and indeed, the country.  Call me old-fashioned, but I think that the truth is demonstrable, and that it is incumbent upon we who value it to fight on its behalf.

Propagandists of the left expect us not to challenge them, and theirs is a shrill reaction when conservatives begin to question them.  They’re not accustomed to being challenged, and most conservatives aren’t accustomed to the rough-and-tumble of the engagement.  We conservatives need to harden-up a bit, and be a bit less flexible in our resolve to expose the lies.  It’s important because when the next generation comes along, the propagandists of the left have been working on them since early childhood in many cases, so that by the time they are exposed to a conservative thought, it’s frequently so foreign, and has been so thoroughly denounced throughout their early education that if we don’t set the record straight, nobody will, and over time, we will have lost the country.

There’s another way conservatives should view this, and it’s something I taught my own daughter: Permitting a lie to go unchallenged is widely seen as an endorsement of sorts.  If nobody ever challenges a lie, it becomes the perceived truth, because it’s been permitted to go unchallenged.  Some will counter that to react in defense is seen as a denial, but that’s not necessarily the case.  One can point to far too many examples in which a lie was confronted not with a mere denial, but with the actual truth.  This is something conservatives must begin to do on behalf of capitalism.  Too often, capitalism is smeared with the sins of statism, and far too often, conservatives are willing to let it go.  I’m not.  When another leftist launches a screed against capitalism, I am willing and anxious to point it out, because I know that capitalism is the only system in which free people can function.  I am not inclined to yield the means of my existence so easily.

When it comes to politicians, like many, I have a hard time defending any of them.  Over my lifetime, I’ve seen politicians betray their supporters in so many ways and with such frequency that it’s almost to be considered “normal.”  The notion is ever that “all politicians are corrupt,” but this isn’t so, and it’s simply not proper to paint with so broad a brush.  More than this, however, is the very focused attacks aimed at particular politicians.  When it’s done by the left, what you come to realize is that it has but a single aim and that is to tarnish the conservative in question without reference to facts, history, intentions, or truth.  This is how the left functions, and what it offers you is a window into what they see as a threat.

This morning, I pointed out the vacuous attacks of Stanley Crouch on Sarah Palin.  Nowhere in his entire piece did he offer even bare substantiation of his claims, but that wasn’t his aim.  His aim was to add one more column to the growing pile that all seem to confirm what every other one has said in some form: “Sarah Palin is no good.”  None of them really offer readers an explanation.  They don’t bother with explaining it, and it’s always offered in the form of a confirmation of previous stories, all of which are no better in terms of their actual journalistic merit.  They pile them up, referencing one another, but none of them really explaining the reasons behind their claims.  The truth is that which I explained:  They oppose conservatives, and anything they say or write about them is permissible on this basis alone.

It’s why I’ve defended every Republican who has been part of this primary campaign at some point or other, because along the way from then until now, each of them has faced these sorts of attacks.  The most egregious of the attacks are those spawned by their fellow competitors for the nomination, and it is for alleged conservatives who employ such tactics that I reserve special contempt.  It’s why Mitt Romney doesn’t get my support:  His entire campaign is a load of out-of-context attacks against his rivals, designed to smear by impression rather than confront with facts.  This isn’t to say that the others have been perfect in this respect, but it is to admit that Romney has the distinction of being the worst of the lot by a wide margin with respect to this sort of campaigning.

The reason all of this matters, and the reason one should not permit lies to stand without challenge is that it will always come back around to haunt you, one way or another, in due course.  If you can’t grasp that simply doing what is right should be sufficient motivation, remind yourself that in the end, if you don’t stand up for the truth now, when it is easier, you’re going to have a hard time later when the lies have been established as truth, and you now find yourself confronting the products of the lies.

A practical example of this is evident in the health-care debate, and I want it stated bluntly whether people wish to read it or not:  When you accept the lie that the only institution that can provide for healthcare for the aged, the disabled, and the poor is the Federal government, and you don’t challenge it out front and immediately, what you permit is the notion to creep in that this is the proper role of government.  Once established as “the truth,” why is anybody surprised when this later manifests in a complete government takeover of all health-care?  You permitted the lie to remain in place, but now that it affects you directly, now, and only now do you raise your voice in opposition to the lie?  It’s a little late to try to debunk what you permitted to be accepted as the operative truth so long ago.

This can be extended into other matters.  Consider how Newt Gingrich was treated in the press in 1995-96.  Many in the conservative movement abandoned Newt Gingrich, because they didn’t want to accompany him on a magazine cover, portrayed as the Grinch, so they permitted the lies about Gingrich to fester and to build, and whatever else you may say about him, it was a damnable lie to suggest Newt Gingrich didn’t care about people then, or now.  Now you are surprised when Democrats run ads depicting Paul Ryan pushing granny in a wheelchair over a cliff?  The moral cowardice implied by the lack of a defense of Gingrich in 1995-96 has now come home to visit us, all based on the false proposition that he was a mean guy back then because he thought it wrong to permit one American to rob another with government as the stick-up man.

In 2008, or since, you may not have defended Sarah Palin when she was accused of spending wildly on wardrobe for she and her family though she had nothing to do with it, but now you enjoy the Obama family’s wild-eyed spending on vacations.  Still, the lie prevails in media, but the truth is that we’ve never had a first family who made use of the public treasure for their personal amusement like the Obamas, while Sarah Palin actually objected to the hefty price-tags on some of the clothing, to the extent that campaign staffers actually got rid of tags and concealed the costs from her at the time.   When conservatives permit these lies to be told, re-told, repeated and widely propagated without substantial challenge, what happens is that the less attentive populace perceives their silence as agreement or at least acknowledgement.   This is the premise that Andrew Breitbart lived to overwhelm: We conservatives, if we love our country and our way of life so much as we claim, must be willing to defend the truth about it, and to do so loudly and often.  We must do so in every context and venue as consistently and fearlessly as the left propagates its lies continuously and remorselessly.

Nothing we claim to value is served by permitting the left’s propaganda machine to spew lies without challenge.  Some times, it will require of us that we get down into the gutter with them, at least long enough to kick their asses and let the truth be known.  There’s only so much we should be willing to tolerate, and it should be a good deal less than has been our practice.  Refuting the left isn’t merely a matter of politics, but is instead a pressing necessity in preserving our republic.   Lies mustn’t be permitted to flourish, and the lament of of Sir Edmund Burke should echo in our minds as we respond:

“All that is necessary for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing.”

It shouldn’t surprise us when we do little or nothing to combat the left’s lies that they prevail in the long run.  Their perpetually dishonest narrative is merely subsidized by our unwillingness to combat them.  If you want to save the country, start here, and challenge everything they say or write.  Chances are, there’s good cause for your challenge if only you are willing to run the truth to ground.  A funny thing happens when you debunk the left:  They quickly change the subject lest too many observers gather the impression that this may not have been their only lie.  Most people understand that dishonesty is habitual, and once they see a few instances of the left’s lies, they simply walk away and the lies have no more effect.

When I’m asked why we conservatives should bother to debunk dishonesty of the sort that Stanley Crouch purveys, I’m inclined to remind my readers that to let the lies remain without stern refutation is to assent to their narratives by silence, but as Andrew Breitbart spent the last years of his life reminding us, conservatives should remain silent no longer.  To save this country, we’ll need to be as vocal as the left, but when we do our homework, we’ll have unassailable truth on our side.  It’s the difference from which the left should never be permitted to hide.

 

Advertisements
Leave a comment ?

3 Responses to Why Conservatives Must Challenge the Lies and Narratives of the Left

  1. phillipser says:

    Mark,
    Very well said. 
    We should always take the liars to task.  What I am amazed at though are those on the left that are almost zombie-like.  You can pound out truth after truth against their argument and they simply glaze over and do what they want against all reasoning.  They have so swollowed the diet of the left wing lies that they have no ability or desire to reason.  Just look at the health care bill that we have now…the majority was against the bill and look what we have.
    Keep up the great work.

  2. Betty says:

    I had to drive to my daughters house this morning to check on a horse of hers.  And as I drove along  I began to think of the principles on which our nation was founded.  I thought of the collective intelligence of the founders and those who fought the revolution, how unique in all of history was their response to the great challenge of their lifetime.  And how for each person involved in the revolution it was an individual response to the great challenge of their life.  I thought about my parents and grandparents and how they responded to the great challenge of their lifetime.

    I wondered about my response to the great challenge of my lifetime.  Which is, I believe, to defeat Obama/socialism and re dedicate America to the ideas of those brave men and women. 

    Our great challenge is a lot subtler, we are presented with a situation where close to half the population want free stuff and they don’t care who is forced to pay for it.  And a president who talks about the Buffet rule while Warren Buffet neglects to pay his taxes in the first place, and secondly,  is manipulating national policies to create more wealth for himself.

    Still the Buffet illustration is used to tell the 49% that it is ok to want to take a share of the fruits of other Americans hard labor.  Rather then tell them – it is their money they worked it and saved it, you can do it too.    What did Lincoln say: you hoe the field, grow the grain and I will eat the bread. (mashed that quote to heck but the idea is there)

  3. C Bartlett says:

    Excellent post Mark!  This was sort of an omen for me. I read your article on Facebook about 2 minutes after reading a post from an ex-co-worker that had a very pro-choice video.  I considered making a comment in response and decided not to create waves because I know most of her Facebook friends are Democrats.  I read your article and thought about it all night. Logged into FB this morning and left a very simple, 2-line comment on the post that makes it very clear that I do not agree with the diatribe in the video that promotes taking a life through abortion.  I imagine it will fire up some angry comments in response but at least my kids (and some other friends) will see that I took a stand on an important issue and perhaps they will do the same sometime.  Thanks for the reminder. We all need it occasionally. “All that is necessary for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing.”  Yes.