A writer’s greatest disappointments are readers who have knee-jerk responses. Not all readers, of course. Some readers are thoughtful and supportive. Others express thanks for opening their eyes. But the majority are happy when a writer tells them what they want to hear and are unhappy when he writes what they don’t want to hear.
For the left-wing, Ronald Reagan is the great bogeyman. Those on the left don’t understand supply-side economics as a macroeconomic innovation that cured stagflation by utilizing the impact of fiscal policy on aggregate supply. Instead, they see “trickle-down economics” and tax cuts for the rich.
Leftists don’t understand that the Reagan administration intervened in Grenada and Nicaragua in order to signal to the Soviets that there would be no more Soviet expansion or client states and that it was time to negotiate the end of the cold war. Instead, leftists see in Reagan the origin of rule by the one percent and the neoconservatives’ wars for US hegemony.
In 1981 curtailing inflation meant collapsing nominal GNP and tax revenues. The result would be budget deficits–anathema to Republicans– during the period of readjustment. Ending the cold war meant curtailing the military/security complex and raised the specter in conservative circles of “the anti-Christ” Gorbachev deceiving Reagan and taking over the world.
In pursuing his two main goals, Reagan was up against his own constituency and relied on rhetoric to keep his constituency on board with his agenda. The left wing heard the rhetoric but failed to comprehend the agenda.
When I explain these facts, easily and abundantly documented, some of leftish persuasion send in condescending and insulting emails telling me that they look forward to the day that I stop lying about Reagan and tell the truth about Reagan like I do about everything else.
“Knee-jerk liberal” is a favorite term of conservatives. But conservatives can be just as knee-jerk. When I object to Washington’s wars, the mistreatment of detainees and the suspension of civil liberties, some on the right tell me that if I hate America so much I should move to Cuba. Many Republicans cannot get their minds around the fact that if civil liberties are subject to the government’s arbitrary discretion, then civil liberties do not exist. The flag-waving element of the population is prone to confuse loyalty to the country with loyalty to the government, unless, of course, there’s a Democrat in the White House.
Rationally, it makes no sense for readers to think that a writer who would lie to them about one thing would tell them the truth about another. But as long as they hear what they want to hear, it is the truth. If they don’t want to hear it, it is a lie.
Both left and right also confuse explanations with justifications.
When a writer writes about the perils that we as a society face and the implications, it is very discouraging for the writer to know that many readers will not listen unless it is what they want to hear. This discouragement is precisely what every truth-teller faces, which is why there are so few of them.
This is one reason I stopped writing a couple of years ago. I found that solid facts and sound analysis could not penetrate brainwashed and closed minds seeking vindication to keep the mind locked tightly against unsettling truths. Americans want to have their beliefs vindicated more than they want the truth. The success of print and TV pundits is based on allying with a prominent point of view or interest group and serving it. Those served make the writer or talking head successful. I never thought much of that kind of success.
Read the rest of this piece by Paul Craig Roberts on Activist Post.
Comments
Re: A Culture of Delusion
It’s sad to see Paul Craig Roberts defend his beloved Reagan who, along with Thatcher, brought in the mass privatization and financial tyranny that has reached its nightmarish fruition. Universities in the state of California had free tuition until Reagan became governor and “reformed” education. Now students are saddled with lifelong debt.
There’s that word again. “Intervened.” Of course, I don’t expect much from Roberts. At age 73 he can barely think any more. Regarding Nicaragua, he is a certifiable asshole. The country was under a savage US-backed dictatorship for decades until the Sandinistas took power. Reagan responded by arming and funding the Contras, who slaughtered tens of thousands of people in Nicaragua and El Salvador. (Just like Syria today.) The CIA funded its Contra operations by shipping drugs to the USA, such as crack cocaine. (Today the CIA does the same thing with heroin, grown in Afghanistan.) Reagan’s Contras eventually lost, but they caused so much death that Nicaragua’s people accepted some degree of U.S. control in order to end the war.
Today Reagan rots in hell, while Nicaragua is again free, with social conditions that are better than any other nation in Central America. There is crime in the capital of Manauga, but there is also crime in Washington DC. No city is free of crime.
That has always been part of U.S. culture. “US hegemony” means One Percent hegemony. “All men are created equal” meant white males with wealth and property. The more wealth and property a white male had, the more “equal” he was. Women and non-whites were not equal, since they were not white males. American women could not vote until 1920. French women could not vote until 1944, Ethiopian women until 1955, Swiss women until 1971, Bahrain women until 2002, Kuwaiti women until 2005, and UAE women until 2006. Saudi women still can’t vote.
This also applies to Paul Craig Roberts himself. He has awakened a tiny bit over the years, but Roberts still has a long way to go.
How about some truth concerning Reagan?
Yes, and their beliefs are dictated by the corporate media.