The Majority is Always Right... Right?

Here's an example: in the group that includes my parents, my siblings, and their spouses, there are nine of us. Eight are conservative Republicans, and one lone sister is a liberal Democrat. That makes her wrong, and us right, right? And she can never be right unless she either joins us, or persuades at least four of us to join her. Right?

Another example: In a group that includes six men and four women, the men all vote to rape the women. Setting aside issues of law and morality and human rights, as the majority, they must be right and cannot be wrong... right?

Another example: a group of ten men are sent by their employer to a distant city for a meeting. They are all similar in size, body weight, metabolism, and all long time residents of the same city in southern Florida. The evening they get there, they learn that the foloowing morning, they must walk a mile to get to the meeting.

Upon arriving at the meeting, the host asks how the walk was. One man says it was a little brisk, but a nice, clear morning and the exercise was exhilarating. The other nine men are furious. They are all cold, some are frozen, one is nearly frostbitten. For the entire meeting they complain about the terrible weather in the city and how awful the day was and how their noses and feet are still frozen. Nothing that happens that day will make up for the cold morning. Was the first man wrong? He must be. Because the majority agreed it was a bad day, a bad city, and their employer was irresponsible for making them walk.

Why the difference? The night of arrival, the first man checked the weather report. He heard it might be very cold. So in the morning, he dressed in warm socks and boots, and gloves, and a hat. The other nine men jeered at him in the hotel lobby. They were wearing cotton shirts, some wore shorts and sandals just like they wore at home. Two of them had wet hair from the shower. And one had just taken a dip in the indoor pool. When they stepped outside, they were stunned to realize it was cold. They laughed it off and started walking. The nine weren't necessarily wrong, though not necessarily smart either. They really did freeze, and they really were miserable. But most of their misery was self-inflicted.

Of course, sometimes the majority is right. Example? In his two presidential elections, Bill Clinton won, but the majority did not vote for him either time. He got 43 and 49 percent of the vote, respectively. Ross Perot triangulated the election, siphoning off some votes. Since I'm a Republican, I won't pretend to know things I don't know. So I won't claim that Perot cost us the elections. We don't know. The point is, the majority of voters did not choose Clinton. In my opinion, they were right.

What is my point? Just because the majority agrees, that does not make them right, nor does it make them wrong. I tried to explain this to a liberal friend recently. He asserted that because all the major network news programs, and CNN and MSNBC clearly oppose Bush, and only FOX does not oppose Bush, FOX is wrong. When he said that, for a few seconds I wondered if he was right. It did sound presposterous. Fortunately, common sense kicked in and I realized that simply being the majority does not make one side right, or the other side wrong.

To hear liberals talk, FOX is the anti-Christ of news. I feel the same way about the Others. The Others, who deliver the news punctuated with their personal beliefs, that is, raised eyebrows, heavy sighs, deliberate word choice (as in, "eavesdropping" as opposed to surveillance), leaving out facts that don't fit their beliefs.

As conservative talk show host Larry Elder says, facts are kryptonite to liberals, so here's a warning. Liberals, look away... or risk exploding. (Not that I'm worried. Most liberals quit reading in the first few sentences and go straight to the comment section to send hate messages, personal attacks, and no facts to support their hatred.)

Here are a few reasons why I respect FOX and cannot respect the Others.

1) A local radio show in the afternoon features a liberal and a conservative. The conservative watches, reads, and listens to all sorts of news sources. The lib can't afford cable TV so he only gets ABC, NBC, and CBS (I know this because he frequently whines on his employer's air time about his low pay). When subjects like the war and Bush come up, I'm stunned at how often the lib has only part of the facts. When the conservative fills in the rest of the details, the lib seems genuinely surprised... checks them out... and to his credit, admits they are true. He calls himself a news junkie and says he watches all the news he can get. So why doesn't he get the whole story? Because the Others only tell the parts they agree with.

2) A conservative friend also does not get cable TV, though she doesn't whine about it. She also gets her news chiefly from the major networks. She watches news all day long, yet frequently only gets half the details. She can recite the news she heard in depth. It just wasn't complete, and coincidentally, the half-news usually involves the Bush Administration. Again, she misses part of the story because the Others deliberately give an incomplete picture.

3) When FOX brings on a conservative guest, they almost always also invite a liberal guest to counterbalance the opinion. If they can't find a liberal guest, a liberal FOX staffer gives the Democrat side. From what I've seen, CNN and MSNBC and the networks seldom do this.

4) FOX invites liberal entertainers on the show, like Roseanne, James Brolin, and others, and treats them with respect (though I wish they wouldn't). The Others invite conservatives on and ambush them, even after promising to be civil. That shows who has class and integrity, and who does not. With liberals (and the vast majority of journalists admit to being liberal) it's all about "gotcha." I picture them sitting around high-fiving each other for the best slam, rather than caring about minor details like decency, integrity, and ... oh yeah... national security.

5) My liberal friend said she tried to watch FOX, but they make fun of liberals. I don't see that, but I admit to being prejudiced, so I assumed she must've seen something I missed. Then I went to her house unexpectedly and she was a little embarrassed to be caught watching a particular program on her beloved MSNBC. I had mistakenly assumed that because she objected to FOX making fun of liberals, she would object to making fun of anyone. I was wrong. Across the bottom of the screen were the words "Is Bush an Idiot?" The show was a series of his speech gaffes, thus proving he is an idiot. I admit I may have missed some of the subtle criticism of liberals on FOX, but I know they do not ever treat anybody like that, especially a sitting president. In another incident, CNN covered one entire speech of Dick Cheney's with a black X across his face. A mistake? I don't think so. By the way, Hitler was an eloquent speaker, but hopefully even liberals admit Hitler was a bad man.

6) CNN's Eason Jordan was forced to admit a few years back that during Saddam Hussein's reign of terror, the network deliberately turned a blind eye to the atrocities he was committing, in exchange for unprecedented access to coverage of Saddam. How is that honest coverage? The good news is, CNN got great ratings back then. The bad news is, untold numbers were slaughtered at the hands of Saddam, and CNN kept his secret for him.

7) Liberals who do not watch FOX are fond of saying FOX skews the truth to favor Bush. But FOX so often criticizes Bush that I sometimes get tired of it and turn it off.

8) FOX has many liberals (too many) on staff as regular on-air contributors. And oddly enough, they are treated with respect.

The fact that liberals hate FOX doesn't bother me. It proves what I already believe about them. They do not deal in class, or respect, or facts, or common sense, or integrity, or class. That's why, when someone disagrees with them, they throw pies and slash tires. It's kind of like a food fight in a school cafeteria. Or the liberal gang of thugs on this Web site that cannot tolerate an opposing opinion, but hunts down articles by anyone with an opposing view, anyone who supports the war, the troops, Bush. Usually, the things they say are personal attacks and without facts. That's who liberals are... the party of Tolerance. It's pathetic. It's really, really pathetic.