So hot it sizzles. (Well, ok, maybe not….)
I’ve discussed before the fact that the Left is basically a knowledge-control cult. The Left hates the free flow of information. This is why they want to kill talk radio. It’s why they want to hand control of the internet to Obama and some Czar that he gets to appoint without the advice and consent of Congress. This is why they cooked up the idiotic idea of having an email address that the leftist ground troops could use to “snitch” on people who aren’t on board with the Democrats’ efforts to destroy our health care system. Campaign finance reform is just another link in that chain. If the government gets to control the flow of money to political parties, then the government gets to control the flow and direction of political discourse. Wrong ideas? No money.
Ironically, this would serve to actually make the government less responsive to the will of the people, not more so. Think about what it would be like it there was no credible political opposition to the government because it has been defunded, and any independent attempts to get the word out via any type of media are criminalized. Consider where we’d be if the Left got its way, and there was no outlet for the millions of Americans who, for instance, oppose the attempt to impose health care “reform” onto us. You’d have the government “doing something,” but the will of the people — as has been repeatedly expressed through everything from polls to town halls — would be completely shut out. That’s what the Left would like to see happen. That’s why the Democrats and their activist groups are so incensed that conservative groups are allowed to publicly debunk all the lies that the leftists are telling us about their health care plans. With the sort of campaign finance scheme they’d like to see put into place, they’d have free run of the marketplace of ideas by default. However, it would no longer be a marketplace, but an echo chamber. In short, the leftists who want public control of election financing are really angling to see a one-party system established — by their party — if it were possible. And consider how responsive to the will of the people one-party systems usually are, which is to say, not at all.
Some thoughts on restrictions on free speech that might help to explain the psychology of cult leaders like etihwelppA selrahC?
