The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles
Title: The Discredited Fourth Estate: Why Liberal Media Hate Trump
Source:
VDare
URL Source: http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-d ... e-why-liberal-media-hate-trump
Published: Dec 4, 2015
Author: Pat Buchanan
Post Date: 2015-12-04 12:57:14 by nativist nationalist
Keywords: None
Views: 2468
Comments: 22
In the feudal era there were the “three estates”—the clergy, the nobility and the commons. The first and second were eradicated in Robespierre’s Revolution. But in the 18th and 19th century, Edmund Burke and Thomas Carlyle identified what the latter called a “stupendous Fourth Estate.” Wrote William Thackeray: “Of the Corporation of the Goosequill—of the Press … of the fourth estate. … There she is—the great engine—she never sleeps. She has her ambassadors in every quarter of the world—her courtiers upon every road. Her officers march along with armies, and her envoys walk into statesmen’s cabinets.” The fourth estate, the press, the disciples of Voltaire, had replaced the clergy it had dethroned as the new arbiters of morality and rectitude. Today the press decides what words are permissible and what thoughts are acceptable. The press conducts the inquisitions where heretics are blacklisted and excommunicated from the company of decent men, while others are forgiven if they recant their heresies. With the rise of network television and its vast audience, the fourth estate reached apogee in the 1960s and 1970s, playing lead roles in elevating JFK and breaking Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Yet before he went down, Nixon inflicted deep and enduring wounds upon the fourth estate. When the national press and its auxiliaries sought to break his Vietnam War policy in 1969, Nixon called on the “great silent majority” to stand by him and dispatched Vice President Spiro Agnew to launch a counter-strike on network prejudice and power. A huge majority rallied to Nixon and Agnew, exposing how far out of touch with America our Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal had become. Nixon, the man most hated by the elites in the postwar era, save Joe McCarthy, who also detested and battled the press, then ran up a 49-state landslide against the candidate of the media and counter-culture, George McGovern. Media bitterness knew no bounds. And with Watergate, the press extracted its pound of flesh. By August 1974, it had reached a new apex of national prestige. In The Making of the President 1972, Teddy White described the power the “adversary press” had acquired over America’s public life. “The power of the press in America is a primordial one. It sets the agenda of public discussion, and this sweeping political power is unrestrained by any law. It determines what people will talk and think about—an authority that in other nations is reserved for tyrants, priests, parties and mandarins.” Nixon and Agnew were attacked for not understanding the First Amendment freedom of the press. But all they were doing was using their First Amendment freedom of speech to raise doubts about the objectivity, reliability and truthfulness of the adversary press. Since those days, conservatives have attacked the mainstream media attacking them. And four decades of this endless warfare has stripped the press of its pious pretense to neutrality. Millions now regard the media as ideologues who are masquerading as journalists and use press privileges and power to pursue agendas not dissimilar to those of the candidates and parties they oppose. Even before Nixon and Agnew, conservatives believed this. At the Goldwater convention at the Cow Palace in 1964 when ex-President Eisenhower mentioned “sensation-seeking columnists and commentators,” to his amazement, the hall exploded. Enter The Donald. His popularity is traceable to the fact that he rejects the moral authority of the media, breaks their commandments, and mocks their condemnations. His contempt for the norms of Political Correctness is daily on display. And that large slice of America that detests a media whose public approval now rivals that of Congress, relishes this defiance. The last thing these folks want Trump to do is to apologize to the press. And the media have played right into Trump’s hand. They constantly denounce him as grossly insensitive for what he has said about women, Mexicans, Muslims, McCain and a reporter with a disability. Such crimes against decency, says the press, disqualify Trump as a candidate for president. Yet, when they demand he apologize, Trump doubles down. And when they demand that Republicans repudiate him, the GOP base replies: “Who are you to tell us whom we may nominate? You are not friends. You are not going to vote for us. And the names you call Trump—bigot, racist, xenophobe, sexist—are the names you call us, nothing but cuss words that a corrupt establishment uses on those it most detests.” What the Trump campaign reveals is that, to populists and Republicans, the political establishment and its media arm are looked upon the way the commons and peasantry of 1789 looked upon the ancien regime and the king’s courtiers at Versailles. Yet, now that the fourth estate is as discredited as the clergy in 1789, the larger problem is that there is no arbiter of truth, morality and decency left whom we all respect. Like 4th-century Romans, we barely agree on what those terms mean anymore. 
Like Trump, Nixon didn't respect the press. In 1972, Americans in 49 states agreed with him.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: nativist nationalist (#0)
People can say what ever negatives they want about Trump, I don't care. The fact that the establishment R's & D's, and the media hate him so bad is a BIG positive to me !!! Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton
Yep. Even on forums such as this you'll see how militant RINO's, liberaltarians and leftists are against him. Judge a man by his enemies and Trump looks pretty good. Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
Comparing Trump to Nixon is an insult to Nixon. Nixon came from humble beginnings and had to fight for everything he accomplished .Nixon served in the Navy even though he could have claimed exemption from the draft because he was a Quaker . He was elected to a term in the House of Representatives and was elected Senator . He served 2 terms as Vice President before becoming President . In other words ,he was as establisment a politician as they come . If he were alive today he would be lumped in with the McCain's and Graham's of the party as "GOPe " . In contrast Trump attended New York Military Academy (which ironically recently filed chapter 11 . ) .It was a private boarding school that had no connection with the military. Trump used his inheritted wealth to build hotels and promotes his name brand . In fact ,his whole gig is self promotion. Ironically we have had great fun in counting the number of times the narcissist in chief has used pronouns like I, My ,Me . Now we are on the verge of selecting someone who could give us 8 more years of the same on steroids . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Sounds like Moshe's upset that we'll have an America First policy rather than an Israel First policy. Tough luck Moshe, if you don't like it you can get your ass back to Israel.
Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
It is quite telling ! Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton
You don't like Trump. There is no other candidate as good, as qualified or as successful. In fact, other than a couple of doctors who are manifestly qualified to be in the operating room performing medical miracles, and rather obviously lacking in leadership ability beyond that, none of the candidates on either side has ever done ANYTHING, other than make speeches. We do not elect ideas; we elect men. The men (and woman) who have presented themselves this cycle are manifestly unqualified and unaccomplished, except for Trump. So, Trump's my man.
I suspect that's what the avergage hans said about Hitler in his early ascension to power. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You can suspect all you want kid, that does not mean anything. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton
Students take up journalism on a mission of censorship and bias of the ideas and information to which the ordinary citizen has access. When pursued succesfully, it places them in a powerful position equal to that of elected officials. For someone with a disturbed mind and limited ability, but a sharp pen, that is the best position possible.
" I suspect . . . " You can suspect all you want kid, that does not mean anything. Other than the extremely well documented facts that I am correct, kiddo. I can live with that. Can you? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
About Hitler, yes you maybe are. But you cannot accurately relate that to Trump. You can only speculate. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton
I most certainly can do more than that. It's the same mentality at play here (i.i. - our hero because he says what what I want to hear and kicks the "system", our oppoessors, so I can forgive the other ugly things he says and stands for). You may noy wish to recognize it but it is. You may have the last word on this subject. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Speaking of Hitler, I hope the krauts still have their old soap recipes. They might actually be able to make something useful out of the Saracen invaders. Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
on another thred I made my case for Cruz . He has both legislative experience and administrative experience in the goverment and also qualifies as 'non- establishment' .He also can win. He would blow Evita away in any debate they have. Trump ,as they say in Texas is 'all hat and no cattle'.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Another comparison is to Napoleon . He came on the scene in the middle of a failed 'revolution' and promised to make France great again. Victor Davis Hanson does a good job on that comparison . https://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/is-trump-our-napoleon Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Queers and steers. That is another saying about Texas. Not true obviously. I take it you think everythig Trump accomplished is a mirage and not real. He isn't really a billionaire. He doesn't employ tens of thousands. He never ran a successful company. That would be all hat and no cattle.
The French Revolution was a spectacular success, not a failure.
It's socialist Liberté, Egalité, and Fraternité quickly descended to the Robespierre Reign of Terror . First the royalists were beheaded, next the moderate girondists, and then just about everyone else was purged by the guillotine .It led first to the dictatorship imposed by the Committee of Public Safety ;and later the military dictatorship of Napoleon. Finally ,after his defeat ,it led to a restoration of the Bourbon monarchy . Since 1793, France has had at least 11 constitutions ,and at least 2 other popular revolutions. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
maybe he's make a good HUD director . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
So much to write about here, and it would be fun to write it in the same smug spirit of ridicule that you used. But I'll restrain myself. My first observation is that it is interesting to find such an ardent American royalist as you. The French Revolution overthrew the monarchy for very good reasons. The French at the end of the ancien regime were treated far more capriciously and suffered far more than the Americans did under your King George. You clearly think that the French Revolution was unjustified. How, then, can you possibly justify your own? Or do you regret that also, and wish that America were a dominion of Great Britain?
Oh the French Revolution was definitely justified . But it was too radical to succeed . The big difference between the American and French revolutions is the contrast between John Locke's beliefs and those of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The American founders believed that rights were natural ,and governments were necessary to protect those rights . But human nature was not to be trusted . The French Revolution was built on the philosophies of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who believed that mankind, being good by its very nature, would exist in a state of complete harmony were it not for the corrupting influences of civilization. The people, in this pure state of nature, were absolutely and completely sovereign. All they needed to do was completely destroy the ancien regime to make that happen. It boils down to individual rights that the American founders believed in , vs. rights defined by the collective equality of the masses. You can be truly free only if you are in sync with the general will. In America, rights were seen as negative things for government to protect....in many instances from the government. In France, they were seen as positive rights which the government was instituted to create and enforce. The modern example of this would be the Roosevelt 2nd bill of rights ;rights that the government create for the people. Democratic Republics today are kind of hybrids of the 2 ideas of rights. Modern America is straying from the founder's ideas as the government grows in size,and in central control. The liberals search for more positive rights to guarantee for the people (paid for with someone else's money and rights ) . Madison identified the flaw in the French Revolution in Federalist 10 : “Theoretic politicians have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.” In other words ,the French Revolution had it's basis on utopian ideas. Sorry ,there is a clear progression from the terror of Jacobinism ,and the bloody purges of the communist regimes in the 20th century ,and the terrorism done by those who would purge their societies today of apostates. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The French Revolution was not much like what you described in your last. The notion that it was "too radical to succeed" is strange. It DID succeed. France became a constitutional monarchy with a burgeoning middle class due to the breakup of the concentrated wealth of the aristocrats. None of that was reversed. The French remembered, and still remember, the Revolution. As a result, French governments that have become too corrupt, too abusive or too feckless have ended up overthrown by the people and replaced. The French know that the government cannot ultimately stand against the people, and French politicians know that too. This acts as a much more effective check on French government than the Second Amendment acts on American government. The US government is really not afraid of the American people - doesn't think seriously about Revolution. The one time that Americans were angry enough to engage in a mass revolt, the Civil War, ended up as a true disaster for the rebelling side. American history taught Americans that armed resistance is futile. French history has taught the French that the government can be brought to heel rather quickly by popular uprising. The government knows that, so it is more circumspect than in America. You vaunt the American Revolution and its Founder's belief in natural rights. But the American Revolution ended with a quarter of the population in chains. The French Revolution abolished slavery in 1794. Napoleon reinstated slavery in the West Indies when he became First Consul, but slavery was abolished in France in another revolution, that of 1848. The French Revolution radicalized because all of Europe attacked France, and the French were fighting for their lives, with enemies within. The Americans, in their revolution, faced the British, but they had the HELP of the French and Spanish and Dutch. But France was attacked by all of the great powers of Europe, who feared the spread of the Revolution. And within the France, the Revolution did not start out with much bloodshed. The nobility began to face the guillotine when, in response to the invasion of France by the monarchist allies, the French nobility sided with the invaders to crush the Revolution. The Americans did the same thing to their own Tories. Once the Americans won the war, the Tories were driven out of the United States en masse, into Canada. The reign of Terror did not last very long. About 20,000 people were executed. The Jacobins were only in power for about a year before the French people reacted and established a less violently radical government. The notion that the French Revolution started well and then went hard over into violence and destroyed the country is ridiculous. That is not what happened. The Revolution started reasonably and proceeded reasonably. When the King fled for Austria and a coalition of foreign countries invaded France, things radicalized, but after the military threat was defeated, the French reacted to the excesses and purged Robespierre. Had the rest of Europe not continued to put together coalitions to invade France, the Revolution would have probably never arisen. But the old regime did not let go. American history would have been quite different had the British not surrendered after Yorktown but simply continued to send more and more soldiers and ships throughout the 1780s, 1790s, 1800s, 1810's, to 1815 and beyond. The British ability to make war was not destroyed at Yorktown. They decided to stop fighting after a nasty defeat. The European monarchies were defeated again and again and again and again in the French Revolution and then onward. They never stopped fighting, which meant that France had to stay mobilized and in arms continually to protect its independence. It is difficult to imagine American Independence at all had the British been as persistent in trying to conquer America as the British and the rest of the European monarchists were at trying to conquer France. Without understanding the basic facts of what really happened in France, or America for that matter, it is rather difficult to understand the Revolution. But it sure is easy to spin yarns.
#2. To: Stoner (#1)
The fact that the establishment R's & D's, and the media hate him so bad is a BIG positive to me !!!
#3. To: nativist nationalist (#0)
#4. To: tomder55 (#3)
#5. To: nativist nationalist (#2)
" Judge a man by his enemies and Trump looks pretty good. "
#6. To: tomder55 (#3)
#7. To: Stoner, nativist nationalist, All (#1)
The fact that the establishment R's & D's, and the media hate him so bad is a BIG positive to me !!!
#8. To: SOSO (#7)
" I suspect . . . "
#9. To: nativist nationalist (#0)
(Edited)
Millions now regard the media as ideologues who are masquerading as journalists and use press privileges and power to pursue agendas not dissimilar to those of the candidates and parties they oppose.
#10. To: Stoner (#8)
#11. To: SOSO (#10)
" facts that I am correct "
#12. To: Stoner (#11)
About Hitler, yes you maybe are. But you cannot accurately relate that to Trump. You can only speculate.
#13. To: SOSO (#7)
I suspect that's what the avergage hans said about Hitler in his early ascension to power.
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
#15. To: SOSO (#7)
I suspect that's what the avergage hans said about Hitler in his early ascension to power.
#16. To: tomder55 (#14)
'all hat and no cattle'.
#17. To: tomder55 (#15)
nother comparison is to Napoleon . He came on the scene in the middle of a failed 'revolution' and promised to make France great again.
#18. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
The French Revolution was a spectacular success, not a failure.
#19. To: A K A Stone (#16)
I take it you think everythig Trump accomplished is a mirage and not real. He isn't really a billionaire. He doesn't employ tens of thousands. He never ran a successful company.
#20. To: tomder55 (#18)
It's socialist Liberté, Egalité, and Fraternité quickly descended to the Robespierre Reign of Terror . First the royalists were beheaded, next the moderate girondists, and then just about everyone else was purged by the guillotine .It led first to the dictatorship imposed by the Committee of Public Safety ;and later the military dictatorship of Napoleon. Finally ,after his defeat ,it led to a restoration of the Bourbon monarchy . Since 1793, France has had at least 11 constitutions ,and at least 2 other popular revolutions.
#21. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter (#20)
(Edited)
You clearly think that the French Revolution was unjustified. How, then, can you possibly justify your own? Or do you regret that also, and wish that America were a dominion of Great Britain?
#22. To: tomder55 (#21)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]