The elite's bogus appeal to 'authority'
Historian Paul Johnson pointed out the liberal ruling class's penchant for self puffery when he wrote Intellectuals. To give you an idea of where Johnson was going, chapter 1 is titled - Jean-Jacques Rousseau; ‘An Interesting Madman.'
In the book Intellectuals and Society, Thomas Sowell exposes the "intellectual" ruling class who, as National Review put it, "Exalt themselves by denigrating our society - and are working to destroy it."
The fabrication of this worldview, i.e., that liberals are the smartest, best and the brightest, and above reproach, has been the underlying template for how we are to view our world. Just ask any liberal.
Liberals are self described authorities on everything. Persuasive speech writing technique implores that the speech giver make an "appeal to authority" to persuade his audience. This is why Algore tells his audience that they don't have to take his word for it, just ask the experts. Ask the scientists, they are the authorities!
Wattupswiththat science blog has a hilarious must see take on this appeal to "authority."
The "top nine authoritative science phrases in print media" are: science tells us we should, science requires, science dictates, science compels, science commands; science says we should, science tells us we must, and science says that we must. The print media makes science out to be a dictatorial prima donna or spoiled child actor.
This technique is used by Obama relentlessly. He implores us that "most leading economists" agree with him on everything. The only problem with that theory is that economists like Keynes are never held into account for their disastrous prescriptions. Algore can tell us that he invented the internet, was the original muse for Love Story, and that he is not bound by any "controlling legal authority" yet he is to be given a pass by the media. Being part of the ruling class means never having to say you are sorry or having to be proved to right about anything.
This false bubble of superiority helps explain why Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman are highlighted by the left. They are considered "authorities" and therefore are above criticism from the unwashed masses. This helps explain how these two blistering imbeciles can be so wrong on just about everything and still be taken seriously by polite "ruling class" society.
This also helps to explain the left's hysterics over Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Ronald Reagan. Most Americans agree with the political worldview of these conservatives and that definitely does not fit the template of "smart liberal vs dumb conservative."
Palin, Limbaugh, and Reagan are to be mocked as less than intelligent. The left's assault on Palin is not in the battle of ideas, where the left always loses; it is on her appearance and her propagandized lack of intellect. Limbaugh was once again correct in his analysis of the Gulf oil spill. Time magazine's putrid Michael Grunwald gave credit to Rush by noting that the "obnoxious and anti-environmentalist" Rush Limbaugh was right. And who can forget the "amiable dunce" president we had who defeated the Soviet Union and created the largest peacetime economic expansion in the history of mankind?
Who is "smarter" on just about every issue we face today? Who is right on the issues and who is demonstrably wrong on the issues - Palin or Obama? I rest my case.
More and more, Americans are waking up to the ruling class liberal elite's penchant for being wrong about everything. On every issue the liberals have it wrong; from job creation to the size and scope of government, from tax cuts to budget cuts, and from common sense to the nonsensical and even absurd.
All this helps to explain why liberals are perplexed that Obama is not getting credit for all that he has done. Why are his job approval ratings plummeting? Could it be "messaging" or "branding?" Do the wizards of smart need to tweak the propaganda noise machine? Could it be that Obama has not sufficiently explained it all to the clueless rubes whose votes he needs? Does he need to speak more slowly to them to make them understand?
Does Obama need more appearances on "The View" to help mold our own worldviews?
But then again, what do we know? We are merely conservatives.