Re: Why Bush Loves West Wing

Dear [Name],

Thanks for sending me your essay on the conservatives and the media. It was very interesting to see your viewpoint on how the media is monopolized and ruled by the conservatives and their “free market fundamentalism.” However, you fail to convince me you are correct in your observation; not in the discussion about West Wing in particular, but in the absolute silence about the nature of the “evils.”
      I have observed the behavior and argumentation of the “far left” for quite some time, and am well aware of their strategy. It is frustrating to see how committed you are to using the same method of “do-not-tell” rhetoric. As I have come to realize, the left over the years has turned from intellectual fact-based argumentation to a constant repeating of nice-sounding, catchy slogans until they are generally thought to be “true.” Please allow me to explain what I mean.
      I believe this dishonest argumentation tactics of using catchy slogans instead of arguments is the greatest problem yet the greatest resource of the contemporary left. It is a problem, since it has in full replaced the intellectual arguments, and therefore the movement of the left is losing ground idea-wise. The contemporary left, compared to its predecessors, is philosophically immature and uneducated; the few existing discussions and arguments are well beyond all reason. To put it simply, the intellectual or philosophical dimension of the left is today almost non-existing in the public debate.
      The overall use of catchy slogans does however provide a basis for attracting the masses, since they are easy to understand and demand no intellectual activity from the receiver. And the slogans are impossible to respond to, since they contain nothing of substance but only express a feeling. This makes the movement grow in numbers, and the left is today able to gather tens of thousands to mass protests against decisions made in political institutions such as the European Union, the United Nations, or the World Bank. And as you say yourself, even though not as self-criticism, “when an actor shouts something in near hysterical rage, or it is repeated over and over, it is to portray credibility for some slogan that has no basis in fact, is unsubstantiated, asserted without proof and without debate or argument.” Honestly, isn’t this what these mass protest meetings are all about?
      Anyway, this growing popular acceptance does not mean the ideas of the left are breaking ground; it simply means the catchy slogans or dogmas you turn to over and over again are truly catchy. It means you have managed to stir up the masses, just as the nation-state centered German socialist Adolf Hitler did so gallantly. We both know there is no substance and no ideological or intellectual depth in Nazism, and there is truly no substance in the dogmas of the contemporary left either.
      I do however admit that the repeating of dogmas may bear fruit. A public acceptance of the dogmas as true will turn the empty slogans into force politics, in which they may be realized through the coercion of the state. This is another dimension of the troublesome tactic: since the slogans do not reflect reality, but only creates a vision of what could be, the politics will end up in total failure only leading to the misery of the people.
      I began by saying you eagerly turned to the tactics of “do-not-tell” rhetoric. It is not my intention to offend you, but to tell you my view on the essay you sent to me. I respect you for your efforts in writing the essay, and the fury you experience as a result of the errors you have identified. Please allow me to explain what I mean by writing this response.
      The essay, as I have understood it, is about the conservative key influence or control of the media, which you claim is obvious in the NBC series West Wing. You make a number of mistakes in discussing American conservative or Republican politics as “free market” centered politics, but that is not of major importance here.
      The problem is in how you describe the problem, i.e. the “threat” you have observed, which you intend to make the reader aware of through reading your essay. This is where you use the tactics I have discussed earlier; you never show what the problem consists of. Yes, you do show that you are infuriated with the “brain-washing” of the American people through the media, but your argumentation is dauntingly hollow.
      You frequently (re)turn to the threat of capitalism, which you claim is “predatory economics and economic slavery.” I would accept your opinion if you did not use the words as a slogan, and I would respect your argument if you presented one. But you insist on using the threat of capitalism as something obvious and universally recognized. Let me tell you this; it is not.
      I for one do not agree with your ideas. As a matter of fact, I would consider myself being your worst enemy, philosophically and intellectually being free market anarchist. I am however always ready to reconsider my philosophical standpoint facing non-refutable arguments and I do respect and appreciate intellectually honest opponents presenting rational alternatives and opposing views. I believe we have nothing to gain in not respecting the views of other individuals.
      I find it disturbing the way you and your philosophical allies use “free market” as a threat, since it only shows your complete ignorance to the nature of man – and the nature of markets. We are obviously not using the same definition, but since I am using the original definition you must be redefining its meaning. In my opinion you and I voluntarily exchanging ideas or things is a “market,” in your opinion this is obviously oppression.
      I see nothing wrong in voluntary mutual agreements, but I see many problems with a force-based hierarchical society. I therefore champion the free market as a means of voluntary wealth-creation through cooperation due to the natural strive in man to increase the standards of living. And for the same reason I wish to abolish state and government as they are the roots of the problem; the use of force and coercion to create non-voluntary and oppressing hierarchical structures in society.
      I believe the “free market” you so eagerly use as an oppressive force cannot exist. The so-called market of today is a product of the state, and therefore needs to be abolished with it. That is my firm belief, my philosophical opinion and conclusion based on the facts available. What worries me in your article is that you do not present arguments for your opinion which I can respond to; I can simply not respond to something non-existing. But believe me, I would if I could.

In liberty,


Per Bylund