Plausibility and rekaB Street: The American Economy

I posted a piece on the way that inhabitants of rekaB Street look for plausible, not accurate explanations, ones that permit one to maintain one’s set of beliefs regardless of reality. Not being an economic specialist, I’m not in a position to vouch for the accuracy of this analysis by Tom Blumer at PJMedia on the problems of the US economy, but a couple of passages caught my eye:

Just days after the November presidential and congressional elections which gave President Barack Obama a non-mandate of 50.6% of the popular vote and the demonstrated supported of less than 27% of all U.S. adults, NBC’s Brian Williams actually told viewers:

With the election now over, it is once again safe to talk about the economy and jobs. Now that it is not a campaign issue, it’s back to reality…

In other words (if I understand), we (the news media) could not discuss reality during the campaign, lest it be used by Obama’s opponents to hurt his chances of re-election. Now that he’s back in, we can. But not really:

At the Associated Press, aka the Administration’s Press, the post-election search for an explanation clearly had two important constraints. First: do not blame the Obama administration or the federal government for anything. Second: find something to blame which appears to be plausible and can’t be immediately refuted.

Of course, AP’s explanation is anything but plausible:

For decades, science fiction warned of a future when we would be architects of our own obsolescence, replaced by our machines. … [T]he future has arrived.

In other words, stay firmly on rekaB Street, lest the news shatter the icons of authority that keep us “safe,” not matter how out of touch with reality that leaves us. Shades of Hillary Clinton.

3 Responses to Plausibility and rekaB Street: The American Economy

  1. Rich Rostrom says:

    This is a consequence of the complete conversion of the chattering classes to leftism.

    At Non Curat Lex, there is a telling bit. The blogger composed an imaginary letter from the only active blogger at “DefiantLawProfzz” to his lazy co-bloggers. He demands that they resign, or else he will “out them” as Romney voters.

    Apparently he thinks that sounds like a terrifying threat. Now doesn’t that say something about the ideological climate at American law schools?

  2. Martin J. Malliet says:

    That’s Plato’s Gorgias: the difference between winning a debate with partisan rhetoric or convincing the opponent with truthful arguments. That NBC’s Brian Williams acknowledges the difference is, well, reassuring, I would think. Socrates received the death sentence for insisting on it.

  3. news feed says:

    news feed…

    You have noted very interesting details ! ps decent site. “He that will not sail till all dangers are over must never put to sea.” by Thomas Fuller….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>