Right-wingers and their sense of entitlement
This is a personal rant to express my frustration about something.
Recently on this show I said that no one is quicker to whine about how unfair and mean you are, no one is quicker to wrap themselves in the mantle of the oppressed, silenced victim than a right-winger losing an argument.
I was wrong about that: It's not only when they're losing an argument. It's all the time. No group of any sort (with the possible exception of the rich) has a greater sense of entitlement, a greater sense that everything has to be arranged for their benefit and if it's not it's just evil and wrong and you're a big meanie.
Recently I was watching the public access station which I call home, where my show is produced. I saw a show produced in a neighboring town, a show hosted by a very conservative commentator, who was grousing about how "the liberals control everything." The fact that he was saying this just before the elections made it doubly amusing, but what I want to get to is that as an example of such "control," he said that on "a station in a neighboring town," the "liberal side of the aisle" is on "three times as much" as he is, which he claimed was evidence of an unforgivable liberal bias on the part of that station.
Okay. Considering my show is called "Left Side of the Aisle," I'm comfortable in assuming he meant me. Well, in terms of actual air time, which would seem to be the relevant metric here, it's true, I am on there more than he is, although it's close to two and a-half times rather than three, but I won't quibble about that. The thing is, on the station he calls home, he's on five hours a week. I'm on 30 minutes. He's on there ten times more than I am. But that was no indication of bias on that station's part, oh no. When the difference benefits him, it's not bias. When it doesn't, it is.
This is just routine about right-wingers. I actually raise this in order to give you another example:
In every state except Maine and Nebraska, states go with the winner-take-all approach when it comes to the Electoral College. That approach has been consistent across US history. But in recent years, GOPpers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin have each considered changing to a method to distribute their state's electoral votes based on which presidential candidate wins each congressional district.
They all ultimately backed off, but now Michigan GOPpers are thinking of trying to push a measure to do that through the state legislature's lame-duck session.
What have all those five states got in common? You got it: Democratic presidential candidates have been winning there.
You're not winning? Change the rules! Because everything has to be arranged for their benefit. Like a grasping 2-year-old screeching "mine! mine!" everything has to be arranged for their benefit. They don't know how to function any other way. And it's really quite sad.
Sources cited in links: