Underlying Agendas

Evil Conservatives And The Corporate

Overlords Who Support Them.

A few years back I had a discussion with a "progressive" friend of mine about the Economist Magazine. I had told her how in-depth and analytical most of the articles were. She responded with two questions that "progressives" commonly pose when presented with positions that are contrary to their own: "what is the author's agenda?" and "what is the agenda of those who fund them?" Whether these individuals have read the works of Foucault and Derrida or not, this approach clearly reflects the deconstructionist search for power, rather than truth within texts.

These good questions become illegitimate when they are used to avoid addressing the merit or lack of merit of a belief or explanation. In the case of the Economist, the bias that their corporate sponsorship may have does not automatically negate the strength of their positions.

"Progressives" are correct to approach the work of corporate supported economists and scientists with extra skepticism, but are wrong to discredit their research without even having read them. Let their research stand or fall according to its merit and not its "agenda."

Another even larger problem is that "progressives" rarely display this same healthy skepticism towards left wing politicians. They fail to ask questions such as, "what is the possible agenda of politicians who are so quick to exclusively blame our economic debacle on the "free market"?" And they fail to explore the possible underlying agenda of politicians, like Barack Obama and Al Gore who stifle all opposing opinions on the source or severity of global warming.

Regardless of how strongly one believes that "an unfettered free market caused the economic crash" or "global warming is an epic disaster with purely anthropogenic causes," they must acknowledge that these explanations conveniently supports the left's agenda to have the federal government and international governing bodies exert increasing control over economic and social life. Such control implies an expansion of the power, prestige and resources of national and international regulatory agencies and the politicians who command them. Even if this expansion is necessary, we should never abandonment of skepticism and scrutiny that are so essential in a democracy.

The larger a crisis is perceived to be, the less scrutiny the government's response will provoke. And of course, the more the public believes that it needs the government's protection, the quicker it will acquiesce to an increase in government power and a decrease in their economic and social freedom. This was true with GW Bush's "war on terror," just as it is now true with Obama's sweeping crusade to "save us from corporate greed and environmental collapse."