You often hear about the threat to Democracy we all supposedly face by religious organizations. Funny enough, it always seems to center around "Christian extremists" and never around the ones that are actually violent.
But I would say that religious extremism is coming from a place they don't like to talk about too often, and that's the media. I think we got a very good demonstration of this mentality from MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle while she was on Bill Maher.
If you missed it, Nick Arama gave a pretty great rundown of the moment between Ruhle and New York Times columnist Bret Stephens. The two got into an argument over the need for Kamala Harris to be interviewed more and have her policy positions laid out for everyone to see. Stephens was adamant that there be some journalist evenness about how the media approaches Harris and Trump, while Ruhle called the idea of needing to interview Harris at all "Nirvana."
This was probably one of the most naked moments of bias from the media you'll see... this week.
But it did expose something that I thought was very interested in terms of how the media looks at the political landscape completely. It reminded me quite a bit of a religion, in fact.
Ruhle's obedience to a political ideology would, in a more sane time, absolutely bizarre. It would like zealotry, in fact. The idea that one candidate should not be interviewed or even questioned in the least. Ruhle's position is that everything should be taken on faith that Harris is the woman for the job because the party she worships told her to.
Even if it was made blatantly obvious that Harris's plans are just the same plans that got our nation into this troubled position in the first place, and they are, Ruhle has no interest in that. She doesn't care to find out, or even if she does know, it wouldn't matter. Harris is above critique according to Ruhle.
Moreover, this religion has its devil and that devil must be opposed at all costs. Donald Trump is the Democrat Party's adversary, and there can be no resistance too great, no action too far in order to make sure he doesn't achieve power. This means that even immoral behaviors can be justified, such as... oh, I don't know... assassination attempts. Two of them, in fact.
Not long ago, I talked about how extremism has become somewhat normalized due to the cultural climate, and this display by Ruhle shows a huge part of it.
(READ: Something More Dangerous Than Rhetoric Is Fueling Political Violence)
This isn't just blatant disrespect toward a political opponent, it's a complete disregard for the country itself being justified by the media's zealotry that Ruhle herself is demonstrating. Ruhle's job is to expose the truth, but she's reasoned there's no point in trying to find it, as the adversary would only benefit from more information. She is deciding for the rest of us that we must take it on faith that Harris is the correct leader for this nation.
When you stop to see this for what it is, it's not just crazy in every sense of the word, it's dangerous. It's fanaticism where it shouldn't exist, and in a place where it can really do some damage.
They like to say things are a threat to Democracy, but from where I'm sitting, this kind of media is one of the largest threats there is. They're willing to collapse civilization in the name of their religion. They don't care who gets hurt, so long as the doctrine is followed.
I think many people don't see this angle because this level of zealotry has been normalized from the media. It doesn't look quasi-religious as no religious words are used, but I can't help but look at this and see the comparisons. I see a cult. A very large, powerful, and loud cult.
