Liberals who Define the World by their Prejudices
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.
8 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
GPW,
Look at the lefty Trolls who coment here, like Gillie (aka Brave Sire Robin) or Bnl or NJLiberal — they cannot DEFEND their leadership but instead, resort to turning any figure of the Right at the time (Call it a Two Minute Hate) into an Emmanuel Goldstein.
I’ve discussed this a few times on my Blog, I think it needs to be publicized that the Liberals, democrats, and progressives need an American Enemy. After the Left sends us all into boxcars, like the German National Sociliasts did with my relatives, they will eat each other.
Email me, the fact that the left needs Emmanuel Goldstein’s is worth using as an attack for 2012 (witness Letterman/Palin this week).
Comment by JSF — June 12, 2009 @ 7:13 pm - June 12, 2009
i’m sorry, were you trying to make a point?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — June 12, 2009 @ 7:29 pm - June 12, 2009
bob,
Disprove my theory:
Talk about 3 policies you liked about the last 2 Presidents. If you can do it, you disprove my theory about The Left needing an Emmanuel Goldstein.
But I think you’ll find an excuse not to participate and allow your hate to go unfestered.
Comment by JSF — June 12, 2009 @ 7:42 pm - June 12, 2009
The point is that talking about assassinating a Republican President is “patriotic dissent”. Disagreeing with a liberal on policy is “racist” and “right-wing extremism”.
Hence the disgraceful, shameful hypocrisy of the liberal left.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 12, 2009 @ 8:36 pm - June 12, 2009
I’m new to conservative politics (the liberals just wore me down with the vitriol for any and all dissent), so could someone please explain why Barney Franks is always described as “unhappy”? Nice post, by the way.
Comment by Lisette — June 13, 2009 @ 8:54 am - June 13, 2009
Lisette, thanks for noticing. I always describe Barney as “unhappy’ because whenever I see him on TV, he looks like he’s miserable.
Now, obviously, I don’t know his mental state, just by watching him on TV, so it’s just a speculation and I’m wondering if he lashes out at his partisan adversaries to compensate for his inner imbalance.
Does that answer your question?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 13, 2009 @ 3:00 pm - June 13, 2009
Yes, that explains it. Thanks.
Comment by Lisette — June 14, 2009 @ 7:23 am - June 14, 2009
You politely refer to their behavior as prejudice instead of acknowledging their narcissistically hostile and borderline confrontational behavior for what it is. Stop giving the LGBT community a free pass.
Comment by RJLigier — June 14, 2009 @ 2:56 pm - June 14, 2009