No matter what the facts are, some in our mainstream media are eager to push the meme that opponents of President Obama are encouraging violence and promoting bigotry. Heck, evidence could emerge showing that Tea Parties are more peaceful than Anti-War protests, but that wouldn’t matter much to those who use only a limited number of adjectives (all with negative connotations) when describing protesters for non-approved causes.
Every time these folks see conservatives taking to the streets, they think back to the 1960s and the opponents of integration.
And while they’re shocked, shocked that some protesters hoist signs saying angry and offensive things, they seem to have just plum forgotten some “eight years of anti-Bush rhetoric“. Well, yesterday, Rush Limbaugh took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to take these folks to task over their collective amnesia:
Liberals are perfectly comfortable with antigovernment protest when they’re not in power.
From the halls of the Ivy League to the halls of Congress, from the antiwar protests during the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq to the anticapitalist protests during International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings, we’re used to seeing leftist malcontents take to the streets. Sometimes they’re violent, breaking shop windows with bricks and throwing rocks at police. Sometimes there are arrests. Not all leftists are violent, of course. But most are angry. It’s in their DNA. They view the culture as corrupt and capitalism as unjust.
Dissent which was once an expression of patriotism has now become evidence of sedition. A charge which Rush roundly rejects:
Like the millions of citizens who’ve peacefully risen up and attended thousands of rallies in protest, I seek nothing more than the preservation of the social contract that undergirds our society. I do not hate the government, as the left does when it is not running it. I love this country. And because I do, I insist that the temporary inhabitants of high political office comply with the Constitution, honor our God-given unalienable rights, and respect our hard-earned private property. For this I am called seditious, among other things, by some of the very people who’ve condemned this society?
The talk show host has more. So, just read the whole thing. And wonder as I often do, why must so many on the left so regularly smear their outspoken adversaries on the right as hateful, bigoted, seditious or whatnot? Why do they insist on defining people they have never met (or barely know) not by their actual actions and expressed concerns and instead dwell on their own prejudiced view of “right-wingers”?