RUSH: Now, maybe I'm naive, and maybe you disagree with me. The reason that I believe it would have been a giant, great payoff if there were a massive education information campaign to instruct people on ideology -- who liberals are, what they do, how to identify them, and how you don't want it -- is rooted in the belief that I think a vast majority would reject it. I think most people who vote for liberals do not really know what they're doing.
Now, there are some true believers. Don't misunderstand. I know this. This is why I still have faith and hope for the country, folks. I really do. I look at the polling data. Twenty percent of the country self-identifies as liberal. In whatever poll you look at, 40% self-identify as conservative. Forget Republican and Democrat. The Democrats win that one, but it's a shrinking majority they have, or advantage. But I don't believe that all these people voting Democrat are true-believer liberals, and the reason I don't believe that is how many of them are persuadable? How many of them do convert once they learn -- There are two things they have to learn. They have to learn what liberalism is, how to spot it, and how damaging it is. The other thing they have to learn is everything they believe about conservatives is wrong, because they've been told it by liberals.
Now, before I get to Evan Sayet, which I find utterly fascinating because it's a quest of mine to pull this off, or not pull it off. It's a quest of mine to continue working on this objective to have -- I'll tell you what it is, I'm trying to inform and educate as many of you as possible to be able to go out there and help people understand what liberals are and who they are. Forget that they're Democrats, but just instruct them about liberals. I can't do it myself. You are a participating part in this.
Before I get to this, though, I just saw something. Dick Turban, in the midst of everything going on, the Senate is gonna be voting soon, I think it said, on the extension of unemployment benefits. It reminded me I have a story in the Stack, and I found it during the break, from the FreeBeacon.com, Washington Free Beacon: "Only 1.6% of American Workers Make the Minimum Wage -- A new study by the American Action Forum found that just 1.6 percent of American workers make at or below the federal minimum wage and argues raising the rate would do little to help the working poor."
It goes on to talk about how Obama's pushing for an increase in the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. And, by the same token, "wants to tie-in with the unemployment benefits." Well, they oftentimes will combine the two. And so the question, if you look at it this way, less than 2% of the workforce makes minimum wage. Why do politicians keep pushing for it? What do you think the answer is? A, it has nothing to do with the minimum wage. This is another classic illustration of how liberals are tugging at emotional heartstrings.
They're not concerned about the substance of this at all. All it does is allows them to position themselves with the disadvantaged, with the victims, as their saviors. It also allows them to indict this unfair and unjust capitalistic economy. The fact that less than 2% of the people make minimum wage, you're not supposed to know that. It's irrelevant. Regardless of how few people make it, it's obscene it's so low. You can't feed a family of four. The Democrats simply use it as part of their class warfare bludgeon and Republicans don't know how to respond. They respond with typical think tank answers on the minimum wage and lose people with that stuff. Even though it's dead on right, you still lose people.
Anyway, "'The Universal Field Theory of Liberalism; and Why the Mainstream Media Gets Every Major Story Not Just Wrong, But as Wrong as Wrong Can Be' was the title of a lecture Sayet gave on January 7 at the Conservative Forum of Silicon Valley." Conservative forum, Silicon Valley. There must have been five people at this.
He said, "It’s an act of bigotry to be an objective reporter." Now, I will admit, I find that brilliant. I wish I had come up with it. It explains a lot about trying to understand the Drive-By Media today. Being objective is bigoted. Why do you think that is? Well, if you're objective it means you are unfeeling toward victims. You are ignoring the pain. If you don't see the pain, if you don't see the failure, if you don't see the suffering and champion it, then you're worthless, you're a bigot yourself.
"The modern liberal, there’s something about his ideology that leads him to invariably and inevitably side with evil over good, wrong over right, the lesser over the better, the ugly over the beautiful, the profane over the profound, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success."
Is that not true? It is. Every word of it's true. "The modern liberal, there’s something about his ideology that leads him to invariably and inevitably side with evil over good, wrong over right, the lesser over the better, the ugly over the beautiful, the profane over the profound, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success."
I asked Cookie for some sound bites. Sam Zell was on CNN today and defended this Perkins guy from Kleiner Perkins who said that there's a witch hunt out there for the richest 1%, and Carol Costello, our former stalker here, CNN reporterette, was just livid at the way Zell -- I've got the bites. I'm gonna try to find 'em, I'll get to 'em in just a second. Dovetails with this. We'll get to it here in just a second.
Mr. Sayet: "If no religion, no culture, no person, if no behavior, if no form of governance -- if nothing is better than anything else, then success is unjust." And there it is. "If no religion, no culture, no person, if no behavior, if no form of governance -- if nothing is better than anything else, then success is unjust. Why should a person, a nation, a government, religion succeed, if it’s not better than any other? So that liberalism says 'everything is equally good, man, coexist -- doesn’t make everything meet in the middle. It makes the better, bad."
If no religion or no culture or no person, if no behavior, if no form of government, if nothing is better than anything else, and that, by the way, manifests itself often in liberalism. It's how you arrive at believing success is unjust. Why should a person succeed, if that person's not better than anybody else? And a person can't succeed by being better because he's not permitted to be better, because that's unfair, that is itself unjust.
So when liberalism, in order to make things right, that says, "Everything's equally good; you can't condemn anything we do." It doesn't make everything equal meeting in the middle. What it does is enable the bad to triumph, and it also stigmatizes the better by making it bad. "Failure as proved by nothing other than the fact that it has failed is proof positive that some injustice has taken place." Failure alone -- in an individual, in a government program, in anything -- just the fact that there is failure, means that some injustice has taken place.
"Why should a person, a country, a nation, a business -- why should it fail, if it's not worse than anything else? And by the same logic, just by extension, if success and failure are proof of injustice, then great success and great failure is proof of great injustice, and at a certain point, great and sustained success and failure -- 6,000 years of Jewish survival, thriving when it's not oppressed; America, the longest surviving and most successful democracy -- you wonder why they hate America and Israel most? ...
"Great and sustained success and failure is proof positive not just of great and sustained injustice, but that this injustice is intentional, and part of an evil conspiracy." In other words, there is no difference in good, evil, or bad. Bad's not worse than good. Good's not better than evil. Because the lesser the failure, the injustice is always going to get the attention or the excuse or the sympathy, because there's always injustice to explain it. People do not fail because they didn't try. They didn't fail because they weren't prepared. They failed because of an ingrained injustice, an unfair set of circumstances, an imbalance, a rigged game, or what have you.
And because this is the case, you cannot say that failure is bad. You can't say that good is better than evil, because good is biased against evil. That's why you can't be an objective journalist without being a bigot, because you cannot exist as a journalist without favoring the failure, favoring the evil, because it is only failure and only evil because of the injustice of the good and the successful and the long surviving and the thriving.
There wouldn't be any evil if not for the good. There wouldn't be any failure if not for the successful engineering it. You may think this sounds convoluted -- and, by the way, I'll submit here that 70/80% of people who vote for liberal don't think this way at all. Don't misunderstand. They can be moved by it. They can be led to believe that this kind of convoluted thinking is rooted in compassion and fairness and diversity and equality and all. That's what all this really means.
To synthesize this to the modern liberal vernacular, all this is talking about is the justification for the liberal pursuit, like Obama's on this inequality pursuit now. Oh, it's all rooted in this. "There shouldn't be any failure, and because there is, it's success's fault, and so we're gonna side with the failure. We're gonna side with the lesser over the better. We're gonna side with the profane."
Take a look at pop culture. What's loved and adored? What is given all the sympathy? Minorities, downtrodden, failure, Democrat Party, they rise to the top. That's the resume enhancement. "He compared the liberal view to a game of roulette, where no number is better than any other, that 'you can't say the winners are smarter or work harder or are better than the losers, it’s just pure luck.'
"'After the same people win and the same people lose repeatedly, You can see the losers looking over at the winners' pile and saying, '"You didn't build that,"'" which is the manifestation of built-up resentment over the fact that success always succeeds. And then at the end of the day, to put this all in focus, who are we to judge, anyway? And that's why it's bigoted to be objective, because the judgment must always favor the profane, the failed, the evil.
Because those properties exist as the result of injustice borne of the majority, success, happiness. This is the perverted, convoluted view goes. This is the way the true believers who are teaching your kids on college campi, who are working in the basements at think tanks, devising Democrat policy papers, think. This is how you get the Obamacare health care bill, by the way.
RUSH: Now, folks, let me wrap up this Evan Sayet business with a different way of looking at this. "What the liberal mind is passionate about today," and it's been always, but for some reason in the past five years it has really surfaced and become totally obvious. "What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are 'workers,' 'minorities,' 'the little guy,' 'women,' and the 'unemployed.'"
They're all miserable. They're all sad. They're in poverty. They're angry. They're exploited. They're discriminated. This is what excites them. This is what they see as this country's economic system producing. They see people who are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, exploited, and victimized, and of course they bear no responsibility for these problems. Oh, no, no. None of these agonies, none of this misery, none of this unhappiness, none of this hopelessness is attributable to them, their ideas, or their own failings, nor is any of this the result of poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration, no, no.
This is all the fault of success or it is all the fault of happiness. It is all the fault of triumph. And what is the cure? Massive authoritarian government getting even with the people who are making everybody miserable and unemployed and exploited and discriminated against, and that's what animates them. That's their orgasm. That is what gets them passionate. Government. And that's why it's a 24/7, 365 existence for them. They will never run out of occupants because they need that. That permanent underclass, they need it. It is the oxygen in their blood. They need dismal, disappointing failure and misery to rally around.
They love blaming success, preparedness, ambition, hard work, stick-to-itive, all the virtues that create the opposite of those circumstances are what come under attack. And the people who hold those virtues are maligned and impugned, trashed, laughed at, made fun of, they're not hip, they're not cool. No, in many cases they're mean extremists. In some cases they're even the 1%. And it's just hideous. If you want to read more about this, there's an author, Lyle Rossiter, Jr., M.D., The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. He wrote it in 2006 and it's just excellent. This kind of stuff is what fascinates me.
I mean, I understand it. I see it. I spot it. I have no questions, zero doubt about any liberal and what animates them and what their policies are gonna be. It is why I think that a solution or a great step forward would be to get as many people educated and informed as possible to this, because until this changes the left is always gonna side with the evil over the good, failure over success. It is why journalists will never be objective, because being objective means ignoring the plight of all of those oppressed. Being a journalist today means finding the people responsible. That's what journalism is today, find the people responsible for the misery and the destitution and call 'em out on it every day.