Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:
And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:
- The poor
- The disenfranchised
- The environment
Media bias has been a point of accusation by conservatives of the media for many years now. I have at times proven this connection true, but it is always nice when “the accused” come out and admit it – again – as in the case of the BBC:
…BBC Director General Mark Thompson admitted to the UK Daily Mail in an article today that Britain’s state-run news outlet has had a “massive” left-wing bias. He insisted, though, that the network is taking steps to remedy the ideological slant.
BBC has a history of promoting the ultra-leftist agenda on most issues. But to see the channel’s top dog admit it in an interview with the Daily Mail was quite a sight.
The Daily Mail’s Paul Revoir reported today:
The TV chief also admitted there had been a ‘struggle’ to achieve impartiality and that staff were ‘ mystified’ by the early years of Margaret Thatcher’s government.
But he claimed there was now ‘much less overt tribalism’ among the current crop of young journalists, and said in recent times the corporation was a ‘broader church’.
He claimed there was now an ‘honourable tradition of journalists from the right’ working for the corporation.
His comments, made in the New Statesman magazine, are one of the clearest admissions of political bias from such a senior member of its staff.
The BBC has long been accused of being institutionally biased towards the Left, and an internal report from 2007 said it had to make greater efforts to avoid liberal bias.
Talk about honesty!
But while the BBC is looking into ways to remedy its “massive” slant to the left, swaths of the American news media have yet to even acknowledge that that slant exists.
Here the media really – truly shows its colors:
Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.
By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.
The data on contributions by broadcast network employees was compiled by CRP at the request of The Examiner and included all 2008 contributions by individuals who identified their employer as one of the three networks or subsidiaries. The data does not include contributions by employees of the three networks who did not identify their employer.
The CRP is the organization behind OpenSecrets.org, the web site that for more than a decade has put campaign finance data within reach of anybody with an Internet connection.
President Obama received 710 such contributions worth a total of $461,898, for an average contribution of $651 from the network employees. Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain received only 39 contributions totaling $26,926, for an average donation of $709….
Here is Michelle Malkin’s recent post and appearance on Fox & Friends this morning:
Another day, another left-wing rush to Fox-bashing, right-wing demonizing judgment…
The reportedly drunk perpetrator worked/volunteered for a liberal interfaith film company and there is zero evidence that he is a Fox News fan, Glenn Beck listener, Republican voter, or conservative blog reader.
No matter. The left-wing media couldn’t wait to indict the Right.
University of Michigan professor Juan Cole headlines his screed: Republican National Committee Slashes New York Muslim Cabbie.
The Village Voice asked hopefully before providing grudging updates: Was the Muslim Cab Driver Slashing the First “Ground Zero Mosque” Hate Crime?
They cannot help themselves. Wasn’t it just a few hours ago that I blogged about another act of Democrat vandalism falsely blamed on the the Tea Party? Why yes, yes it was.
From GOP fake hate crime hoaxer Ashley Todd to suicide census worker Bill Sparkman, there remains an unrestrained impulse among too many to falsely scream political violence when it doesn’t exist — and to ignore it where it does exist. There also remains a stubborn double standard and refusal on the Left to acknowledge when its side fakes the hate.
But like I said just a few hours ago and like I’ll certainly have to say again and again and again in the future: Being a Tea Party-bashing liberal means never having to say you’re sorry for smearing conservative dissent.
Here is a response to a conversation elsewhere. I originally was going to post this in multiple pieces on FaceBook, but it would have been too many posts. I post it here only because my comments section here at RPT and my response here are not limited to certain amounts of spaces or words. Enjoy, although as usual, I am long-winded. I should be a professor!
Thanks Nora for hopping into this conversation. This can be an emotional topic, so know that even though I cannot see your facial expressions, hear concern, humor, or consternation in your tone — I afford you the best of intentions. I do wish to, however, point out some mistakes in your thinking. I may take a post or two to do so as I respect where you are coming from… so bear with me. FIRST POINT, there will be a mosque in the community center. In fact, it will be the top two floors and be tall enough to view the site of the Twin-Towers. That’s number one.
NUMBER TWO, I wish to discuss this issue of molestation by priests that you intimated about.
School counselors, dentists, Buddhist monks, foster parents, and the like — all have abused children. Men who are pedophiles look for positions of AUTHORITY OVER [*not yelling, emphasizing*] children that afford MOMENTS OF PRIVACY with these same children. Dentists do not violate children or women in the name of dentistry. Buddhists monks do not sodomize children in the name of Siddhartha. School counselors in the name of psychology, foster parents in the name of Dr. Spock, etc, … you get the point. Likewise, priests do not violate children in the name of Christ. (The many terrorist attacks are in the name of something… can you tell me what Nora?)
So I hope you can see that mentioning churches next to schools is a non-sequitur, I think we can agree that any church moving priests (Catholicism) or pastors (Protestantism) from one parish or church to another is a problem that has to be dealt with. Just like teachers who have the same issues levied towards them are moved from district-to-district (N.E.A.).
b) [Stats] here is a portion of a post on my site (http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/ – CNN):
- When asked if they“support or oppose the proposal to build the Cordoba House,” New Yorkers said they oppose the facility, which is expected to cost $100 million, by a 63-27 percent margin. At the same time, by a 64-to-28 percent margin, New Yorkers say Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has the constitutional right to build it. A majority of every demographic group – by party, region, age, gender, political philosophy – agrees that there is a Constitutional right to proceed,” said Siena College pollster Steven Greenberg. “Even a majority of those who oppose building the mosque agree by a margin of 51-42 percent that they have the right to build it.”
These polls hit to what I and almost all conservatives have said, “yes they can build their Constitutionally, however, they should — if truly wanting to build bridges — build a bit further away.” Not a building where they found pieces of bodies from the plane and Tower of that first strike, as well as pieces of the plane. But the people of New York are making their choice… and if the elite in N.Y. continue on the road they are, in November many of these Democrats will be out. As is it looks as if we may take back the Senate AND House. So, keep it up Dems.
c) Xenophobia has nothing to do with this argument. Everyone I know of (Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, [insert name here]) is making the same argument almost all moderate Muslims are making. To wit I would hope you look into this phenomenon, that is Muslims that stand against this mosque (Even More Muslims Come Out Against This Mosque). I included some links in that post to previous posts highlighting Muslims speaking out against this Mosques location. They are well worth reading/listening to. Obviously these religious Muslims are not xenophobic. It is similar to the stories I heard thrown in my face about heterosexual crimes (homophobia) committed against gays. However, what is often overlooked (like all the news stories of dentists, school counselors, Buddhists monks, etc — it is in the medias blood to highlight the Catholic version of these crimes) is that there are crimes committed by homosexuals towards heterosexuals as well. see for instance this story I posted quite some time ago:
These stories have no bearing on the morality (morally right or wrong) of racism, Homophobia, Heterophobia, Islamophobia, or xenophobia. So posting a story about a Muslim being stabbed would be like me showing the many stories of successful and attempted honor killings of women in the name of Islam, in America. The underwear bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, the family that converted to Islam and was stockpiling 27,000 thousand rounds of ammunition to commit Jihad. However, all those have no bearing on our particular dilemma [sorta]. Posting a stabbing also shows that this mosque is not building bridges, like moderate Muslims say it isn’t. (In other words, you would be proving my position.)
UPDATE (another video added):
This story has changed and I wanted to make sure people coming to this post are aware of it. I will post the video here as well as the insight as I posted it elsewhere:
Very quickly, I just posted on this Cabbie incident. He was stabbed by a leftist [that backfired a bit, both by whom did the stabbing AND that this mosque is not building bridges but causing film students to attack]:
d) I wanted to deal with a few outlying issues here that are not necessarily geared towards you Nora.
i. More and more info has come out about this Imam even since the last time I said “more and more information has come out about this Imam.” (See for instance: Fact and Common Sense vs. Bad History and Analogies) So knowing what is plainly laid out in this and other places, what is the reason they want this place when they have been offered tax breaks, discounts, and offers of other properties close by. According to Muslims who have come out against this property it is to look (literally) at the spot that these Twin Towers were attacked and brought down. That is fellow Muslims words, not mine.
ii. Many people do not ask themselves this simple question about the founding of religions. “What were the founders of the major religions like.” Asking questions about the nature of these religions and their founder is not racist, xenophobic, etc. So let’s do this. Here is a favorite quote of mine:
So this is where I like to ask persons if they would want followers of Christ to be more Christ like and followers of Muhammad to be more Muhammad like? When Peter cut the Roman soldiers ear off, Jesus healed it. Muhammad order the cutting of and personally engaged in the slitting of [700-to-900] men, women, and children’s throats. Jesus broke Jewish tradition by allowing children into the inner circles to exemplify them in regards to faith. Muhammad married a six-year old and consummated the marriage when she was nine. Did you need more examples?
iii. Comparison of Scripture. Some quick facts. Scripture in Islamic tradition is prescriptive. In the Biblical sense it is descriptive. This simple comparison goes a long way to explain why most of the terrorists in the world today are Islamic. Another explanation for this phenomenon is that in the Islamic fundamentalist tradition, verses in their Scripture. I guess the best way to exemplify this is with this final posting in a debate where a Muslim was trying to explain his faith to others. However, I showed him I had an in-depth understanding of his view of his scripture. Here is my response which is cataloged at my site Discussing God:
Obviously Kursat didn’t return because he was not a moderate Muslim. Moderates look at the Qur’an as descriptive and they reject the idea that these verses in the Qur’an are placed in any chronological importance. THUS, the later verses about Jihad in Islamic fundamentalism DO NOT trump the one’s about peace. It is these types of moderates that are sounding the alarm over this Imam and placement of the mosque. It are these Muslims we should be supporting.
NewsBusters has a story about conservative candidates being covered in their various failings, but not the Democratic candidates:
(Jeff Greene… following in JFK’s footsteps)
- Convicted rapist and former boxer Mike Tyson traveled through Europe aboard the Summerwind with Greene in 2005, and recently had to clarify that he did not do drugs while aboard the yacht. Though he did do drugs during the trip, in Amsterdam, just not he claims, on the boat.
- Back in 2005, the Belize government claimed that Summerwind caused major damage to coral along one of the country’s most economically important coral reefs. Greene denies knowing anything about the incident.
- In 2007, the Yacht broke the embargo by docking in Cuba. Greene claims it was for emergency maintenance, and he took the opportunity to visit Cuban synagogues. The St. Pete Times says of the stop, “everybody talked about the vomit caked all over the sides from all the partying going on.”
- Sharyn Peach, a Fort Lauderdale woman who used to work as a stewardess for Greene aboard the yacht, recently wrote of her time aboard for our sister paper: “Working on Greene’s 145-foot Choy Lee yacht was like being ‘locked’ in Studio 54 in its prime. It was nothing short of ‘Sex, Drugs, and Techno Music.’ Celebrities, ‘hired’ party girls, mayhem, and debauchery. I saw more tits and ass in one night on Jeff Greene’s Summerwind than I have for the past seven years on South Beach …The real partying started in Sag Harbor, New York. That’s when a deckhand and Mr. Greene would go to a place named the Sex Castle and come back with new women almost daily. …Shortly after that party, I found four lines of cocaine in Mr. Greene’s stateroom bathroom marble vanity.”
- A 2009 account of Greene’s yacht habbit in The Greatest Trade Ever went like this: “Greene brought two Ukrainian strippers on board to make a cameo appearance and hired stewardesses from coastal towns to serve as his crew. Some doubled as massage therapists, which came in handy after a day of scuba diving, Jet Skiing or kayaking.”
- Several former employees of the yacht describe Greene as just a horrible, horrible boss.
- Just this past New Years Eve, Lindsay Lohan was a guest on the yacht while in St. Tropez.
New Poll Info:
A recent CBS News poll found that 71 percent of respondents believe it is “not appropriate” to build the mosque a few blocks from Ground Zero, including a majority (57 percent) of Democrats. A Time poll found that 68 percent are following the issue “somewhat closely” or “very closely.”
When asked if they “support or oppose the proposal to build the Cordoba House,” New Yorkers said they oppose the facility, which is expected to cost $100 million, by a 63-27 percent margin. At the same time, by a 64-to-28 percent margin, New Yorkers say Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has the constitutional right to build it.
“A majority of every demographic group – by party, region, age, gender, political philosophy – agrees that there is a Constitutional right to proceed,” said Siena College pollster Steven Greenberg. “Even a majority of those who oppose building the mosque agree by a margin of 51-42 percent that they have the right to build it.”
The Mosque issue isn’t going away and it just got more interesting. Apparently Steve Emerson, Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism (a large storehouse of archival data and intelligence on Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorist groups), has unearthed hours of audio in which Imam Rauf sounds not so moderate after all. The audio hasn’t been released yet, nor the context, but from the sounds of it….the context won’t matter a whole lot:
Steve Emerson has unearthed 13 hours of audio tape of Imam Rauf. Emerson and his team of investigators has spent the past four weeks going through the newly found material. Rauf is a “radical extremist cleric who cloaks himself in sheep’s clothing.”
Among the shocking revelations Emerson’s team will reveal next week — they found Rauf:
Defending wahhabism – a puritanical version of Islam that governs Saudi Arabia
Calling for the elimination of Israel by claiming a one-nation state, meaning no more Jewish State.
Defending Bin Laden’s violence
Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project fact checks some of the positions in this radical audio, which some are positions the radical Left take as well. Audio of Emerson on the Bill Bennett show can be found here. Steve Emerson shows how Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf may have committed a felony. This is a growing story and my position that says this will bit the Dems in the ass is coming to fruition.
This is a Libertarian Republican h/t:
Daisy Khan, wife of Ground Zero Mosque developer Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, said on ABC News This Week that she’s worried about rampaging Islamophobia sweeping the United States.
“this is like a metastasized antisemitism… It’s not even Islamophobia, it’s beyond Islamophobia. It’s hate of Muslims.”
Syndicated radio talk show host Tammy Bruce, a pro-defense libertarian and gay rights activist responded with “Little Daisy Whines” on her blog TammyBruce.com:
Daisy Khan doesn’t seem to understand is that perhaps this isn’t about Muslims at all, but about Americans protecting and defending a site that is now precious to us. The malignant Narcissism of these people is astounding and so encompassing they, like the Obama admin in fact, cannot see beyond their own self-obsession. Little Daisy is loathsome–we didn’t start this, they did. We didn’t choose the location, they did. And the gall to claim opposition to the GZ mosque is “metastasized antisemitism” is the same as our own government calling Tea Party Patriots Nazis, UnAmerican, and the Mob. They’re all the same. There’s only one group of people who were mass murdered on 911 and that was Americans, not Muslims. And there has been only one group continuing to implement mass murder since then–Muslims. And there is one country that still calls for the mass extinction of Jews in the world, and it’s a Muslim country.
This next story is with thanks to BigJournalism:
VELSHI: The name Cordoba- some people are associating it with Muslim rule and bloody battles, when, in fact, Cordoba was one of the finest times in relations between the major religions.
GHOSH: Exactly right- in interfaith discourse-
GHOSH: And the great mosque of Cordoba that people are talking about and that Newt Gingrich was talking about- the man who built it, the Muslim prince who built it, bought it from a Christian group- paid money for it and bought it from a Christian group. And there was not a lot of alarm and anger raised then.
Reinhart Dozy (1820-1883), the great Orientalist scholar and Islamophile (i.e., by any objective standard, notwithstanding Ghosh’s uncontrolled spraying of the ridiculous charge of “Islamophobia”), wrote a four-volume magnum opus (published in 1861 and translated into English by Francis Griffin Stokes in 1913), Histoire des Musselmans d’Espagne (A History of the Muslims in Spain). Pace Ghosh’s distorted reportage, here is Dozy’s historical account of the mid-8th century “conversion” of a Cordovan cathedral to a mosque:
All the churches in that city [Cordova] had been destroyed except the cathedral, dedicated to Saint Vincent, but the possession of this fane [church or temple] had been guaranteed by treaty. For several years the treaty was observed; but when the population of Cordova was increased by the arrival of Syrian Arabs [i.e., Muslims], the mosques did not provide sufficient accommodation for the newcomers, and the Syrians considered it would be well for them to adopt the plan which had been carried out at Damascus, Emesa [Homs], and other towns in their own country, of appropriating half of the cathedral and using it as a mosque. The [Muslim] Government having approved of the scheme, the Christians were compelled to hand over half of the edifice. This was clearly an act of spoliation, as well as an infraction of the treaty. Some years later, Abd-er Rahman I [i.e., the “Muslim prince” in Ghosh’s redacted narrative] requested the Christians to sell him the other half. This they firmly refused to do, pointing out that if they did so they would not possess a single place of worship. Abd-er Rahman, however, insisted, and a bargain was struck by which the Christians ceded their cathedral….
…the contemporary scholar J.M. Safran discusses an early codification of the rules of the marketplace (where Muslims and non-Muslims would be most likely to interact), written by al-Kinani (d. 901), a student of the Cordovan jurist Ibn Habib (d. 853), “…known as the scholar of Spain par excellence,” who was also one of the most ardent proponents of Maliki doctrine in Muslim Spain:
the problem arises of “the Jew or Christian who is discovered trying to belnd with the Muslims by not wearing the riqā [cloth patch, which might be required to have an emblem of an ape for a Jew, or a pig for a Christian] or zunnār [belt].” Kinani’s insistence that Jews and Christians wear the distinguishing piece of cloth or belt required of them is an instance of a legally defined sartorial differentiation being reconfirmed…His insistence may have had as much to do with concerns for ritual purity and food prohibitions as for the visible representation of social and political hierarchy, and it reinforced limits of intercommunal relations….
Victor Davis Hanson, in his article, almost “gives in” to Obama’s consistency. Like a younger brother or cousin you tickle till he is gasping “uncle” almost peeing his pants. (In the case of my son who would hold off in habit to the very end, he would… love those dad moments. It was a teachable moment about not waiting to the last second to respond to your body’s call to nature.) In same fashion Victor pleads with Obama… Please, No More Teachable Moments. After getting his reader built up, Victor ends well with about the last third of his column:
….Where to start with all these teachable moments?
All these controversies involve issues addressed at the state and local level, with presidential action unnecessary. In such contentious matters, why intervene when Obama cannot do much other than polarize millions?
We have learned that President Obama has a bad habit of impugning the motives of those with whom he disagrees. In the Gates case, he rushed to condemn Crowley and the police. Arizonans were not to be seen as desperate citizens trying to enforce federal law, but instead derided as bigots who harass minorities when they go out to get ice cream. And in the mosque case, the president disingenuously implied that opponents of a Ground Zero mosque wanted to deny the legal right of Muslims to build religious centers.
Note that all three issues poll badly for the president, and belie his former image as a conciliator and healer.
Again, why does Obama go off message to sermonize about these seemingly minor things that so energize his opposition and make life difficult for his fellow Democrats?
First, off-the-cuff pontificating on extraneous issues is a lot easier than dealing with a bad economy, two wars and heightening tensions abroad. Sermonizing is a lot different than rounding up votes in Congress, fending off reporters at press conferences or dealing with aggressors abroad — and it can also turn our attention away from near 10 percent unemployment and a heavily indebted government.
Second, Obama has spent most of his life around academics, lawyers, journalists and organizers. That insular culture tends to pontificate and lecture others far more than do action-oriented business people, soldiers, doctors and farmers — the doers who are few and far between in this administration.
Third, as an Ivy League-trained lawyer and former Chicago community organizer, Obama embraces an overarching race/class/gender critique of the United States; the story of America is not so much about an exceptionally independent and prosperous people, a unique Constitution or a vibrant national past in promoting global freedom, but about how the majority oppressed various groups. Clearly, these local instances of purported grievances have excited the president — and almost automatically prompt his customary but unproven declarations that the majority or establishment in each case is biased or unfair….
Which brings me to the second Victor David Hanson article, which really is the precursor to the above one. By the way, to break away here, most major criminals have three names: guys who shot presidents, serial killers, and the like. Victor is doing all those things, just in pen against the Left. He is a great historian and columnist, to say the least. Okay, back on track. In this article he makes the point that there is a lot of ad homonym attacks that do nothing but try to steer the debate away from that, debate. I will post only his first half of his article that is entitled Everyone a Bigot?, but the whole thing is worth reading:
Anti-Hispanic, anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-black — it is hard to keep track of all the recent charges of alleged bigotry.
State representatives in Arizona overwhelmingly passed an immigration law to popular acclaim — which the Obama administration for now has successfully blocked in federal court. Arizonans simply wanted the federal government to enforce its own laws. And yet they were quickly dubbed bigots and racists — more worried about profiling Hispanics than curtailing illegal immigration.
In California, a federal judge has just overturned Proposition 8 ensuring traditional marriage. Voters in November 2008 had amended the California constitution to recognize marriage only between a man and woman, while allowing civil unions between partners of the same sex.
Californians took that step in response to the state Supreme Court’s voiding of Proposition 22, a similar referendum on traditional marriage that California voters passed in 2000. Apparently, a stubborn majority of Californians still sees traditional marriage as it has been followed in some 2,500 years of Western custom and practice. In contrast, gay groups have framed the issue as one of civil rights, often charging prejudice on the part of their opponents.
Another controversy is brewing a mere 600 feet from Ground Zero in lower Manhattan, site of the 9/11 attacks, where a Muslim group wishes to build a $100 million, 13-story mosque. Opponents feel this is hardly a way to build bridges across religious divides, but instead a provocative act that tarnishes the memory of the nearly 3,000 people who died at the hands of radical Islamic terrorists.
New York state residents poll in opposition to the project. Their unease reflects legitimate questions over the nature of the foreign funding for the project, and the disturbing writings and statements of the chief proponent of the plan, Feisal Abdul Rauf. They also worry that radical Islamists will use the mosque’s construction (it will probably rise before the World Trade Center complex is rebuilt) as a propaganda tool.
In response, once again the majority has been dubbed bigoted and prejudiced, this time against Muslims for asking for a more appropriate location, farther away from Ground Zero.
After lengthy investigation, Rep. Charles Rangel, former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is facing charges of unethical conduct. In response, Rangel has scoffed that a plea bargain offer was nothing more than an “English, Anglo-Saxon procedure.” The inference was that ongoing prejudice, not moral lapses, caused Rangel’s problems.
Rangel’s charges come at a time when Rep. Maxine Waters faces ethics questions for allegedly using her office to steer federal money to a bank that was associated with her husband. And since eight members of the Congressional Black Caucus have recently faced ethics inquiries, we are hearing that race, not unethical conduct, is the real reason for the investigations.
These diverse cases offer some lessons….
Dennis Prager has some great insights into why the Left uses such tactics and holds them over our heads in a professorially superior manner. They believe that anyone who disagrees with them isn’t just wrong, but evil. I would love to sit down with a liberal friend at Starbucks and talk for hours on this subject thinking that they are truly mistaken… but deep down they want whats best for the situation and outcome at hand. At most they are severely misguided because of their class-warfare outlook on life, in which case I would love to talk about how to view the world. In their eyes I am not wrong, but evil. Prager explains:
Dennis puts into words, better, the above, when he spoke of Harry Reid in 2006:
The highest-ranking Democrat in America, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, described the Senate bill making English the national language of the American people as “racist.” And the New York Times editorial page labeled the bill “xenophobic.”Welcome to the thoughtless world of contemporary liberalism. Beginning in the 1960s, liberalism, once the home of many deep thinkers, began to substitute feeling for thought and descended into superficiality.
One-word put-downs of opponents’ ideas and motives were substituted for thoughtful rebuttal. Though liberals regard themselves as intellectual — their views, after all, are those of nearly all university professors — liberal thought has almost died. Instead of feeling the need to thoughtfully consider an idea, most liberal minds today work on automatic. One-word reactions to most issues are the liberal norm.
This is easy to demonstrate.
Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:
And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:
- The poor
- The disenfranchised
- The environment
These two lists serve contemporary liberals in at least three ways.
First, they attack the motives of non-liberals and thereby morally dismiss the non-liberal person.
Second, these words make it easy to be a liberal — essentially all one needs to do is to memorize this brief list and apply the right term to any idea or policy. That is one reason young people are more likely to be liberal — they have not had the time or inclination to think issues through, but they know they oppose racism, imperialism and bigotry, and that they are for peace, tolerance and the environment.
Third, they make the liberal feel good about himself — by opposing conservative ideas and policies, he is automatically opposing racism, bigotry, imperialism, etc.
Examples could fill a book.
Harry Reid, as noted above, supplied a classic one. Instead of grappling with the enormously significant question of how to maintain American identity and values with tens of millions of non-Americans coming into America, the Democratic leader and others on the Left simply label attempts to keep English as a unifying language as “racist.”
Another classic example of liberal non-thought was the reaction to former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers’ mere question about whether the female and male brains were wired differently. Again, instead of grappling with the issue, Harvard and other liberals merely dismissed Summers as “sexist.”
A third example is the use of the term “racist” to end debate about race-based affirmative action or even to describe a Capitol police officer who stops a black congresswoman who has no ID badge.
“Phobic” is the current one-word favorite among liberal dismissals of ideological opponents. It combines instant moral dismissal with instant psychological analysis. If you do not support society redefining marriage to include members of the same sex you are “homophobic” — and further thought is unnecessary. If you articulate a concern about the moral state of Islam today, you are “Islamophobic” — and again further thought is unnecessary. And if you seek to retain English as America’s unifying language, you are not only racist, you are, as the New York Times editorial describes you, “xenophobic” and “Latinophobic,” the latest phobia uncovered by the Left.
There is a steep price paid for the liberal one-wording of complex ideas — the decline of liberal thought. But with more and more Americans graduating college and therefore taught the liberal list of one-word reactions instead of critical thinking, many liberals do not see any pressing need to think through issues. They therefore do not believe they have paid any price at all.
But American society is paying a steep price. Every car that has a bumper sticker declaring “War is not the answer” powerfully testifies to the intellectual decline of the well educated and to the devolution of “liberal thought” into an oxymoron.