That seems to function as case here, as Friedman’s other condition — that Trump agree to release his taxation statements for 2016 through 2018 — is simply as unrealistic however, not for the main reason Democrats might have you believe. It’s not they think Trump is concealing some sinister criminality but that the returns could be a gold mine for ginning up class resentment against the mega-wealthy Trump and fodder to smear him with innuendo.
NEW YORK TIMES COLUMNIST URGES BIDEN TO NOT DEBATE TRUMP UNLESS POTUS AGREES TO ‘TWO CONDITIONS’
Friedman recommends the fact-checkers be approved by both candidates “and that 10 minutes before the scheduled conclusion of the debate this team report on any misleading statements, phony numbers or outright lies either candidate had uttered. That way no one in that massive television audience can go away easily misled.”
He arrogantly implies that his candidate — Biden — would automatically win in a truth contest. But why should anyone assume the confessed plagiarist and policy chameleon would have a benefit here?
The answer is that Friedman knows, perhaps subconsciously, that such process could be rigged. Like so many terms in the liberal lexicon, “fact-checker” doesn’t mean what progressives want you to think it means.
Invariably, fact-checkers are adjuncts of the liberal media who depict opinions as facts, such as for example a conservative’s assertion (or progressive’s denial) that we have a crisis on the southern border. At one point, the network-news broadcasts were pregnant with panting anchors apoplectic over the claim and dubbed it an outright lie. As conditions at the border steadily deteriorated to undeniable crisis levels, we heard no retraction from Democrats, significantly less from the opinion-checkers.
We shouldn’t ignore Friedman’s ludicrous proposal simply because it’s going to never be adopted, because it provides a window to the progressive mind. Many progressives are frighteningly narrow-minded, intellectually cloistered and authoritarian. They tend to believe their opinions are facts (or so morally superior they ought to be treated as such) and so are justified in censoring opposing views as inarguably false, immoral, offensive or politically incorrect.
In institutions they dominate, such as for example academia and Hollywood (or bar associations), they get to define what is offensive and then ban it — by diktat. For example, Cambridge University rescinded a speaking invitation for psychologist Jordan Peterson because of his skepticism about white privilege and climate change. Compounding foolishness with absurdity, the censors claimed they disinvited him to promote an “inclusive environment.”
Similarly, some state bar associations now require, as part of the continuing legal education lawyers must imbibe to retain their licenses, a course in diversity, inclusion and anti-bias. Attorneys must sit through the propaganda, during which certain debatable assumptions are treated as fact and the progressive agenda is high level. One presenter admonished his captive audience to think about the possibility of bias in every part of their law practice — that they must always be mindful of it as they tackle any legal problem, presumably even those who couldn’t remotely touch about them. How’s that for thought control?
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE OPINION NEWSLETTER
One takeaway from these examples and hundreds more is that the left, at its core, lacks confidence that its views could prevail in the marketplace of ideas, and thus it manipulates the playing field. We see this in its support for the destruction of monuments and erasing our history because it wants to control not only the present narrative but in addition the historical one.
Friedman’s fearlessness of fact-checkers doesn’t mean he’s confident that Trump’s dishonesty and Biden’s truthfulness will be exposed but that today’s” fact-checkers” will almost always drop on the side of progressives. Progressives are very much accustomed to controlling the narrative that they’re confident their subjective ideas will soon be presented as factual. Perhaps even scarier is they think their opinions are objectively true.
Why must they control people and their thoughts? Why cannot they allow people to draw their very own lessons from history as opposed to purging it? Why are they afraid of debate viewers deciding for themselves whether Trump’s or Biden’s ideas are far more compelling and truthful?
CLICK HERE TO OBTAIN THE FOX NEWS APP
How often do conservatives suggest that we erase evidence of our history? That we ban certain speech because they think it is offensive? Do conservative business people ever send employees to sensitivity training because their views are not conservative enough?
Tom Friedman’s laughable idea is not any laughing matter because that he represents the authoritarian progressive mindset. That many such progressives sincerely believe their ideas are superior isn’t the problem. The problem is that they want to curb your freedom to oppose them.
CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE FROM DAVID LIMBAUGH