From Plato to Leo Strauss and his neo-con children, the idea of the 'noble lie' has had a terrible fascination for those certain that they know best--yet who find their ideas rejected by the masses. It's great; it gives them an excuse to manipulate without guilt.
Somewhere, deep in one of the so-called "think tanks" of the right, the "truth" of the need for the 'noble lie' is being pounded into more and more neophyte pundits, readying them to go out and lie to us with straight faces, secure in the "knowledge" that what they are doing is for our own good.
How else could there have developed the Ann Coulters, the Rush Limbaughs, the Bill O'Reillys, even the Cliff Kincaids? How else could they sit in front of the cameras day after day, lying and lying again, doing so without apology? Never even admitting the lie when they are caught?
It's too much a pattern; somewhere behind it must be a plan. There must have been a directed discussion on this point, beginning twenty years ago or more, a discussion that David Brock was a part of when he wrote his Anita Hill book, a discussion that continues to this day (fortunately, Brock found he couldn't continue the lies and opted out).
It's a movement, an incredibly dangerous one, for it is inherently anti-democratic--even while its minions cheer the so-called "spread of democracy." You cannot both support democracy, which is based, after all, on the idea that the people are competent to make decisions when given accurate information, and support lying to those very people.
Yet the members of this movement lie and lie. And lie and lie. They are destroying the very foundations of our republic.
Sorry if you've heard this too often but, in the face of consistent and increasing lying, pointing it out has to be consistent, too.