What Is Wrong With Liberals Today?
Here is a brilliant analogy of liberals. It is reposted from Mangy Redbones blog and I have supplied a link to his blog. He has a lot of intelligent stuff to say about a lot of things. I would highly recommend his blog to your readership.
Blessings on all who read it.
Growling At Whatever Bothers Me
Jim Treacher and Professor Jacobson and many others are noting that the liberal website Wonkette decided to attack and mock (again) Sarah Palin’s three-year old disabled child. What is wrong with these people?
Here is what is wrong with them. Liberals claim to be tolerant, but are lying to themselves and everyone else about it.
Gays must be embraced in the name of inclusiveness. Conservatives must be shunned.
9/11 “truthers” are welcomed or politely ignored. Obama “birthers” are anathema.
Piss on a picture of Jesus and you are an artist. Piss on a Koran and you are an Islamaphobe. Embrace Christianity and you are a dangerous proponent of theocracy.
If you are black or hispanic or a woman running for office, that alone is a sufficient qualification for election (see Obama, President). Unless you are a conservative, in which case you are never qualified; in fact, you are a traitor who must be stopped at all costs (see Palin, Sarah).
Free speech is essential. Unless you are a conservative addressing a crowd in Madison, Wisconsin(see Althouse, here), or any college campus.
And on, and on. It is not diversity they want, but a certain kind of uniformity of views that correspond with their own. If your views fit within that framework, you will be welcomed. But if not, you will be attacked in the most hostile and unpleasant ways.
That is in part because a large percentage of liberals do not want a debate on the merits. They are losing the debate on the merits. So they want to stop debate.
To do so, they try to delegitimize those who disagree with them:
If you are against affirmative action, you hate minorities and women. Let’s never discuss whether affirmative action is appropriate, necessary, successful, or harmful even to those who “benefit” from it.
If you are skeptical of global warming claims or the policies advanced to combat it, you hate the environment, or are in bed with big oil, or are “anti-science.” Let’s never discuss whether the models actually predict anything accurately.
If you are against uncontrolled spending, you want grandma to starve and disabled children (such as the child being mocked by Wonkette) to be abandoned in the street. Let’s not consider what happens to grandma and kids when the Ponzi scheme collapses.
If you don’t want to shovel ever more money into public schools, you hate children. Let’s not consider why we have had continual massive increases in school funding without achieving better results.
If you don’t want above-market public employee pay and benefits, you want to destroy the middle class. Let’s not consider whether public employees deserve to be paid more and have better benefits and more job security than those who pay for them.
The problem for liberals is that they lose these debates when they have to argue the merits. So they attack, deride, shout down, and distract as much as possible.
That is, essentially, what the whole new civility nonsense was this Spring. Liberals are not in favor of civility in discourse. The most vile stuff comes from the left, not the right. Instead, they want to impede the ability of conservatives to present their arguments.
Conservatives must push back, refuse to be silenced, call them out on their arrogance, disingenuousness, and shallowness, and continue to fight the good fight. We must, in the immortal words of Chief Lone Watie, “Endeavor to persevere.”
UPDATE: At NRO’s The Corner, Mark Kirkorian has similar thoughts in the context of immigration. A taste:
[The goal of the the open-borders smear campaign against immigration skeptics] was to drive all immigration skeptics out of the public debate by labeling any skepticism about immigration as inherently racist. In other words, to make questioning mass immigration the same as questioning the desegregation of lunch counters. . . .
Metaphorically speaking, they don’t have to learn our language because everyone they know speaks theirs. On the other hand, restrictionists, as the underdog faction perpetually on the defensive, have no choice but to try to understand the concerns and thinking of the expansionists. This is a phenomenon people on the right are very familiar with; conservatives at the most left-wing colleges, for instance, are often better prepared for intellectual combat than those from more conservative schools because they’ve been forced to engage and think through the arguments of their pervasive opponents rather than just dismiss them.