Presenting a fake conservative to viewers allows liberalism to pretend to be the stronger and more stable alternative.
“The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed.” – George Orwell
Our world is consumed by media. Social media and traditional media dictate our thought processes because we are sunk into them from the day we’re born until the day we die. We conform to the media, not the other way around. As such, what the media tells us, we believe to be at least somewhat factual.
This process has given rise to a false understanding of conservatism. This understanding betrays real conservatism because it is not remotely conservative—it only claims to be. Many TV series feature the commentary of individuals who are for all intents and purposes Democrat lite, yet we, the audience, are told otherwise.
For example, when “The View” brought on Nicole Wallace as a co-host, she was trumpeted as the conservative of the group because she worked with Sarah Palin during the 2008 election. Nicole Wallace is anything but conservative. Wallace was a cardboard cutout for the liberals on “The View” to refer to as conservative.
By making Wallace the “conservative” of the group, “The View” was creating a false idea of conservatism. Certainly many who watch the show came to believe that Wallace was the embodiment of conservatism.
The power of the media—specifically the leftist behemoth—is such that they can manipulate perceptions unnoticed.
Now, “The View” is bringing into the fold Ana Navarro, a major Jeb Bush shill who also worked on the John Huntsman campaign—if that gives you any idea of her ideological leanings. And once again, they will market her as the “conservative.”
This manipulation is dangerous for many reasons, the most important of which being that when people see women like Navarro or Wallace as “conservatives,” very little daylight is offered between conservatism and liberalism.
When people are exposed to these faux conservatives, all they see is liberalism lite. When someone sees two allegedly contrasting ideologies with very little real variation, they will go with the ideology that projects strength. Strength—in the face of loser faux conservatives—is liberalism.
The media beats the drum for Democrats, and then presents these mealy-mouthed alternatives as alleged conservatives. Low-information voters will tend to lean toward those who present strong positions, regardless of the content of those positions. The media presents these lame “conservatives” as an alternative to liberalism because they know weakness of ideology will always lose to strength of ideology, regardless of content.
So Navarro will be the new face of conservatism, and the millions who watch will fall for the notion that conservatism is a weak ideology.
The Democrats are extremely cunning, and work both angles. Conservatives are either extremist nut jobs—or as John McCain calls them, “wacko birds”—or they’re weak as a packet of Kool-Aid in an Olympic sized swimming pool. There is no in-between. Conservatism is never presented for what it is, which is a reasonable and humane ideology.
Navarro will be the next Wallace, which is to say a pawn in a long-con. She may not know it, but her purpose will be to project weakness, thereby giving liberals the upper hand.
As George Orwell said: “Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed.”
No bold colors, only pale pastels. It is the left’s goal to make sure people remain completely unaware of any alternative.