Jon Stewart recently did a segment on The Daily Show, where he joked that Fox News and, by extension, conservatives…are the NEW liberals.  Enjoy:

While Stewart is clearly joking, the point he makes is quite serious and worthy of a moment’s reflection.  Here’s a glance at what has changed in the arguments we hear from the conservative camp since the election:

BEFORE THE ELECTION:  People and grassroots organizations peacefully protesting the war and other actions of the administration…are unpatriotic, perhaps even traitorous, and are “hurting America.”

NOW: People and faux-grassroots organizations, protesting using violent and often racist imagery (some even carrying weapons)…are patriots exercising their Constitutional rights in an inspiring display of democracy in action.

BEFORE THE ELECTION:  People who criticize the President during wartime…are unpatriotic, and are hurting our soldiers by helping the terrorists.  U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

NOW:  People who criticize the President (still during wartime, mind you), are patriots who value our soldiers and are helping our country.

BEFORE THE ELECTION:  Bush and his Congress need to act quickly to bail out the financial system before we have a total collapse!

NOW:  Why did Obama and his Congress bail out the banks without any strings attached?  Just more Democrat-led fiscal irresponsibility!

BEFORE THE ELECTION:  Bigger, costlier government…great!  As long as they tell us it is “making America safer!”

NOW:  Bigger, costlier government, no matter who it is going to help…even if it helps EVERYBODY in the country…is SOCIALISM and must be stopped!

BEFORE THE ELECTION:  Fiscal responsibility:  what is that?

NOW:  These Democrats are fiscally irresponsible and it’s going to destroy the economy!

BEFORE THE ELECTION:  It’s ok to bend, even break our constitutionally protected freedoms and guarantees of due process of law…it’s even acceptable for the government to break the law…as long as it is making us safer.

NOW:  We’re losing all of our freedoms!  This administration wants to take away our Constitutional rights!  NOTE:  Ironically, they can’t point out a single freedom they’ve lost under Obama.

BEFORE THE ELECTION:  So what if they’re collecting phone records, reading emails, and wiretapping domestic conversations…I’m sure they’re keeping us safer.

NOW:  Obama is going to collect our data through the census…and is compiling an “enemies list” by asking people to send in myths they hear about health care reform.  He must be stopped!

BEFORE THE ELECTION:  Those liberals…why are they always whining and trying to play the victim?

NOW: All the liberal media is ganging up on us, and they don’t want to let us say what we want to…and they are always pointing out all these facts that make us look bad!

AND THE HERE’S BIG ONE…

BEFORE THE ELECTION:  The government can be trusted to tell us the truth and to handle things properly.

NOW:  The government always lies and can’t do anything right.

Jon Stewart is right to shed some light on this obvious, pervasive hypocrisy…and it would be oh-so-much funnier, if the level of the conservatives’ convenient self-deception weren’t so extreme, so profound, so widely unacknowledged.

Here’s the clip:

You see…this is what President Obama said in Egypt the other day, and he was speaking not just to the Muslim people of the world…but to all of us. Here’s a page containing the full transcript, for those who wish to perform more careful examination. Now, why do I imply that a person’s reaction to this speech will reveal some sort of greater truth about him or her? Read on…

There are three things to consider when analyzing a speech of this nature (and people’s reactions to it):

1 - What was actually (and factually) said. There’s what the speaker said, and what he or she did not say, in terms of exact verbiage and content. Too many people confuse this with items 2 and 3 below. No. What is said (and conversely what is not said) is a matter of FACT.

2 - What the speaker meant. Let’s face it…we all know that the speaker had certain underlying messages that he or she wished to communicate to us…certain ideas that he or she wished to promote. The problem: since these intentions are largely implied and often quite subtly, it is a HUGE mistake for any person to assume full and clear knowledge of the speaker’s intentions…this will not stop many from asserting that they do.

3 - What the hearer brings with them. To a large (and provable) extent…we are LOUSY listeners, largely because we have an annoying tendency to hear what we want to hear and to dismiss anything inconsistent with what we already believe.

These considerations…are why any speaker who is attempting to change perceptions and ideas is taking a huge risk. No matter what he or she actually says…beyond what he or she actually intends…most people are going to be most strongly influenced by what is ALREADY INSIDE THEIR HEADS. So let’s realistically apply these considerations to Obama’s speech:

1 - Very few of Obama’s opponents will have any concept of what was actually said. They didn’t watch it live, they won’t watch the clip, and they won’t read the transcript. They will refuse to do this for two reasons: One…their disdain/distaste for their opponents makes them unwilling to even listen to them. Two…it is easier to disagree with the “notion” of what they “believe” he is speaking about, than it is to actually address specific points he makes. A great many other people won’t listen because they are just lazy…and some people, either those who wish to be fully informed or who strongly support Obama, will ACTUALLY LISTEN to the whole speech.

2 - Many will attempt to tell us what Obama meant. In fact…many people will try to tell us what he meant who didn’t listen to one word of the speech. This is because listening to the speech is not a requirement for making statements guessing what the speaker intended. Those who generally oppose Obama will lean towards the talking points provided by the Republican/Conservative camp. They have to…because, once again, most will not have actually listened to the speech. So, they will say that the speech is “apologizing” or even that it is “supporting the terrorists/sympathizers” or that it “undermines our troops.” They will not produce any quotes to support any of these notions…they will not feel the need to, because these assertions (while not supported by fact) are consistent with what they WANT to believe. Supporters of Obama who are unwilling to spend the time listening to the clip or reading the transcript will assume the speech is designed to build better relationships with the Middle East and to reduce terrorism through a more positive national image. And what few folks do listen to the whole speech will know that this perception is largely accurate: Obama points out the commonalities between all people, all religions, and all countries…in what seems a clear attempt to emphasize that which we all have in common; and he uses the same argument to indicate that it is the extremists who must be identified, ostracized, and marginalized from all our cultures.

3 - People’s assertions as to the number 2 consideration above…will largely tell us what those people have within themselves that colors what they think and hear. Just imagine how a person might hear Obama’s speech if they were a racist? Or how might it come across to a xenophobe…particularly one of the many in this country who have come to define all foreign people (particularly Middle Easterners) as “dangerous” and “terrorists?” Might they not see any attempt to say “we are like you” as an effort to placate and befriend terrorists? What about the Christians who are as fanatical as their supposed Muslim opponents…the ones who think that all other people of all other faiths are going to Hell, and who have neither the capacity nor the desire to learn about any other beliefs than their own…the ones who fear nothing more than a Muslim world, an Agnostic world…any world not TOTALLY Christian. Might they not see any attempt to lend credibility and acceptance to another faith’s adherents as an abandonment of “Christian-American” values? What about the people who are quietly (perhaps subconsciously) ashamed that our country has broken our own laws and international treaties in terms of how we have detained and tortured prisoners…who can barely muster enough character to apologize for their own mistakes; to them, might not any admission of our country’s wrongdoing or mistakes sound like “an apology?” Or the great many scared people…the ones who can’t understand that the reason these terrorists attack us, might just be because they don’t REALLY know us, they same way you don’t REALLY know them (only the demonized version of them)…when they hear any words indicating a future friendship, might they not hear that such a friendship might leave us vulnerable to another attack…and decide that “constant fear and suspicion” is a much safer approach? Might not the die-hard nationalist, who cannot accept that his country could ever do any wrong, much less that it could have sent thousands of its young sons and daughters to die over a deception…might he or she not hear an “undercutting of our troops?”

Or...

What about the people with hope? The people willing and wanting to learn what people from different countries and faiths are really like? The people who actually believe that the good people of the world are the majority, and the extremists the minority? What would they hear? What about the people who want to try something different in the Middle East, having seen all the failed efforts of the past? The people who want to address what mistakes were made, and don’t mind admitting to them…who don’t find this to be a shameful practice, but instead see it as a measure of learning, character, and growth? The people who don’t see a person who is different, looks different, thinks different, prays different, as some sort of threat to their own looks, thoughts, and prayers? What might they hear?

Taking all this into consideration…some items for your examination:

- FOX News and The American Spectator declared that Obama didn’t address “terror” in the speech because “Six thousand words and the words ‘terror,’ ‘terrorist,’ or ‘terrorism’ do not appear even once” , and The View’s Elizabeth Hasslebeck claimed that Obama avoided using the word “democracy.” As to the first claim…Obama may not have used the word “terror” but he did speak often, and at length, about “violent extremism” and about specific incidents such as 9/11, rendering this an inane accusation. Hasslebeck’s claim is even worse…because it is simply false: Obama uses the word “democracy,” or variations, a minimum of six times and it was a major, numbered subtopic of the speech. What do these claims/assertions say about them?

- Sean Hannity intentionally cropped a clip of the speech to give the perception that the speech, in Hannity’s words, “decided to give 9-11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage.” When listened to unedited, a child would realize that this was not at all what Obama was saying., What does this say about him?

- Conservative pundits and legislators have gone so far as to label parts of the speech “un-American” and “sympathetic to terrorists.” Senator Inhofe, R-Tulsa, took exception to any claim that torture was conducted at Gitmo: “There has never been a documented case of torture at Guantanamo.” What does this say about them?

More things to consider:

- Here’s David Axlerod…when confronted with the claims of “un-Americanism” and Obama’s supposed “Apology Tour“, Axlerod points to exactly the same phenomenon that I spoke of earlier: “I think that they didn’t pay attention to this speech or any of the speeches that he’s making. Because embedded in this speech was a very strong explanation, explication of who we are and what we’re all about, about our values as a country and our history as a country.”

- Oh yeah, directly from the “Proof-Is-In-The-Pudding-Department:” there are some indications that Obama’s approach to the Muslim world is already paying off. For example…did you hear that in Lebanon, a pro-Western majority was just elected to the Lebanese parliament over their Hezbollah counterparts?

It makes a person want to ask…who are the real extremists? Is it possible, to a certain degree, that “we have seen the enemy and it is us?” Perhaps the extremism that must be stifled first, already exists in our own borders, in our own culture…and in our own media, as Jon Stewart points out:

More Stewart on the subject:

Have a good afternoon…more soon…