The abundance of evidence that the Holocaust shooter harbored strong animosities against the two most recent Republican presidents and had little in common ideologically with the mainstream of modern American conservatism notwithstanding, certain left-of-center pundits and bloggers have attributed his murderous actions to (what they define as) “hateful” conservative rhetoric.
And yet, as they make the jump from the shooter’s actions to their ideological adversaries, they do little to illuminate his motivations, exposing only their own prejudices against conseratives. Because, they believe, the shooter hated Jews, he had to be a “right-winger” because the right wing is the source for anti-Semitism in America. Such an attitude shows that while they accuse those of us on the right of living in the past, their understanding of anti-Semitism dates back at least forty years.
Their views of conservatives have little to do with the reality of the conservative movement in America today, indeed, with the conservative movement as it has been evolving at least since William F. Buckely, Jr. launched the National Review in 1955. And yet, all too many in the MSM, equally clueless about the ideas undergirding American conservatism, don’t challenge them on their misunderstanding.
And when they do get challenged, well, they don’t know how to react. Witness Barney Frank earlier this week. When the unhappy Massachusetts Democrat accused CNBC host Mark Haines of “wanting to do ‘nothing’ about the economic crisis, which isn’t at all what Haines said,” the host tried to correct the record. Instead of acknowledging his error, the Congressman “played victim and whined his way off the stage.”
It seems this mean-spirited liberal has bought into the propaganda his party has used to discredit the opposition, believing critics of Democratic plans just want to “do nothing.” When faced with evidence to the contrary, he becomes disoriented, lashing out at the misrepresented party and refusing to engage in any kind of dialogue.
Thus, since conservatives don’t fit their narrative of what we’re supposed to be, they have to resort to name-calling because arguing with us would mean acknowledging our ideas. And by dint of acknowledging our ideas, they undercut their (at that point, previously) prejudiced worldview.
They might find it easier to talk to us, if they tried to see us as we are and not as their prejudices define us.