The Grand Old Punching Bag Party
Start applying Broken Windows Theory to liberal intolerance
Joel Pollak at Breitbart.com writes, Liberal Intolerance: You Believe What?:
I was at a dinner recently where I happened to be seated at a table with new acquaintances of the liberal political persuasion.
We went around the table introducing ourselves. As I said that I work for a “conservative website,” a man at the far end of the table made his displeasure known by booing. He wasn’t kidding.
These were professional, accomplished, senior members of the community. They had never met a conservative before. Their first reaction was hostile. No one chided the man who booed, or apologized on his behalf for his rudeness, or laughed to break the tension.
Instead, I began to face questions: you really support what Boehner is doing?
Yes, I replied. He’s doing the right thing by standing up to the president. Gasps.
Look, I said, trying to be diplomatic. I understand how Democrats see this. Democrats believe that these extremists have taken over the Republican Party, and they don’t like government much anyway, and–
“They can’t stand the fact that a black man is in the White House!” someone interjected.
That’s not true, I said. Oh, yes it is, they said….
The conversation was cut short by the sound of a glass tapping at the next table, for a toast. We never did come back to the question of whether I was a racist who could not stand a black man as president.
I doubt these folks thought of themselves as mean people. But I am certain many other conservatives have had similar interactions among liberals in elite, polite society. Worldly as they are, they have no clue.
Law Professor Stephen Bainbridge writes in response to Pollak:
Been there. Done that. I’ve never seen conservatives–other than TV talking heads on the boob tube– be as rude to liberals as some liberals are to us. Ever.
We’ve all encountered that.
Usually, it’s in a situation where the insult is just tossed into the flow of a conversation — almost always in a group setting where the perp feels emboldened — and then the conversation moves in other directions. The rude barb just becomes part of the landscape.
We’ve gone too long allowing a perjorative landscape.
It’s why the most Senior Democrats feel free to call us the worst possible names and taunt us in a demeaning manner. They receive no pushback from our Senior politicians for the venom spewing from their mouths. We’ve become The Grand Old Punching Bag Party.
Compare the rude, vicious terms from Obama and his spokespeople, and Senior Democrats such as Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi and others, with the gentlemanly behavior of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.
There is plenty of push back and name-calling on both sides at lower levels and on the blogosphere, but it’s qualitatively different when it comes from The White House and the Democratic Party House and Senate leadership.
When the leadership of the Republican Party does not push back against the leadership of the Democratic Party for the name-calling and taunts, it’s an invitation to more attacks, and it sets a national tone.
We’ve become punching bags. At dinner and at the highest political levels.
We need to do what Rudy Giuliani did to graffiti artists and squeegee guys, apply broken windows theory:
Social psychologists and police officers tend to agree that if a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken. This is as true in nice neighborhoods as in rundown ones. Window-breaking does not necessarily occur on a large scale because some areas are inhabited by determined window-breakers whereas others are populated by window-lovers; rather, one unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing.
My resolution for this 6th year of Legal Insurrection is to confront liberal intolerance on the spot. No more broken windows at dinners. Senior Republican politicians should do the same, in Congress.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Huzzah!
Why “Huzzah”? It’s more like “yawn”.
The application of this theory is nothing new. In fact, the most famous example of the practical application of this theory on the political scene today is Gov. Sarah Palin.
When Palin punches back, the Commies say she’s an “attention whore” or she likes the “spotlight/limelight” or whatever. She never lets the sun set on a Communist lie without refuting it, whether the lie come from the Democrats or the GOP.
The fact is that Democrats are a cowardly pack, which is why they only have the courage to trot out their boos and hisses when with the pack/herd. The GOP needs to grow a pair and that will only happen with the election of Conservatives willing to implement Giuliani-Palin maxim.
Some time ago, on another site, I created a term for them. TWANLOC. Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen. We do not speak the same language. We do not share a common history. We have diametrically opposite world views. We do not share a common culture. They hate us with a fervor that is literally religious. We share a common piece of territory, but they literally hate that territory. We are not of the same nation. History shows what happens when people that different and hostile are not allowed to separate peacefully.
This is not going to end well.
Joel Pollak was too kind.
The hiss-boo guy was not professional, and those who sat mutely by and gaped were not professionals either.
They are simply
BULLIES!!!!!!!!!
Like all bullies they cry the loudest when you punch back twice as hard.
The problem here is that the GOP hardly ever pushes back in the same manner. Democrats are far more cunning than Republicans and thus we pay the price.
The GOP had better realize that polite discourse is no longer an option. Where are the ads that chronicle exactly what the democrats are doing in DC? We cannot depend on the MSM ever!
None of this has occurred overnight but has been in the making since the LBJ years. If it is not stopped, the outcome will be real enslavement…
The reason conservatives in the past haven’t responded back, is because:
1) We instinctively don’t want to become social pariah’s. Because we as human beings are social creatures, and want to continue to be accepted. And,
2) We believe in the “kill them with kindness” theory of getting along. We believe, as Christians, Jews, spiritualists, etc, that every person is redeemable and will eventually follow the Golden Rule.
It’s a problem only because it’s a strength. The followers of Alinsky have turned that strength to a weakness.
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
The Left lives on emotion and feelings, which are temporal, transitory things. Feelings and emotion are like a heroin rush. They work for a while and then leave the user needing more. If a Lefty jumps you at a social event, his feelings are lifted, and he gets positive feedback from his or her cohorts. As the feeling fades, the Lefty needs more. Any retrospective is not shame but a reliving of the moment. That is what they are so viscerally expressive. They have no shame.
Conservatives live on facts, beliefs and principles. If we act out, we feel stupid, bad and know we’ve let ourselves down by violating our personal code of behavior. We have manners, which are embedded in values and codes of conduct.
and that is how all dictators down through history have controlled those sort of peoples – through feelings and emotions. Fear being feeling and emotion that is the ultimate dictator tool.
The reason I haven’t responded back is even simpler: I would kill them.
I have an idea.
Let’s send them all a one-way ticket to here!
http://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/thumbs/81/fd/uranus,gay,glbt,homosexual,retrofuturism,scifi-81fdf059490b8b5a01f2a244e0adeefa_h.jpg?ts=93246
I guess Joel Pollak’s wife, who is black, wasn’t in attendance.
Joel Pollak and his beautiful wife:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/splatworldwide/4258244598/
Articles like this is the reason we love you, thank you.
I have a ready-made laboratory for testing the mood of the Leftist Hive. My leftist sibling professor, various friends of hers and some family routinely get together and invite me, because that is the right thing to do with family and friends. However, there is always a 5,000-pound gorilla in the room in the form of unspoken-of politics, which from 2000-2008 were always fair game. Now, my sister the government professor has to fall back on her personal feelings and not the Constitution or properly functioning government to discuss Regime Obama. The rest are typical LIV’s and garden variety lefties.
When someone finally says something to which I must respond, it’s on like Donkey Kong. Like Tommy Atkins at Roarkes Drift, I’m under assault on four sides. It’s an amalgam of MSNBC, John Stewart and The Gospel According to Obama. The civility wears thin, and finally the pretension of bonhomie takes flight under the innuendo, lies and outright derision.
They have nothing but Alinsky. He is their shield. Absent their Bodyguard of Lies, suborned by the Media, the entire left of center would sit on nothing more substantial that a pile of thin, warm sh*t.
On a side note, I eschew the word “liberal” because our mother was a traditional, New Deal liberal who embodied that notion of pursuit of the truth, regardless where it leads us. Those people got shut out of the Democratic Party when the hard left took over. The last time my late mother was politically active was when she briefly knocked doors for Scoop Jackson.
People look and my mother’s children and wonder how we ended up on opposite sides of the political spectrum. I will offer my thoughts on that for another time, but sadly siblings end up on the opposite sides of conflicts all the time.
I feel like America is at war with itself and has been for quite a while. Right now, it’s a “polite” war, but I worry that if Obama keeps poking We The People in the eye, it’s going to get “civil” real fast. And sadly, that’s what I think he wants.
“I feel like America is at war with itself and has been for quite a while. Right now, it’s a “polite” war, but I worry that if Obama keeps poking We The People in the eye, it’s going to get “civil” real fast. And sadly, that’s what I think he wants.”
You’re not wrong. He and his fellow travelers are just itching for the right excuse to openly rule by EO and declare martial law where it would be logistically feasible. That’s just the easier things that are not to hard to imagine. How about nationalization of the energy industry under the pretense of “saving the planet.”
I would agree Obama wants to enjoy dictatorship, but I don’t think he actually thinks he could obtain that and keep it. If so, the park service would still be keeping places closed, and not agreeing to allow states to pay to open them. They would be arresting busloads of people, too.
He pushed it as far as he thought he could get away with. I think he was slightly surprised he couldn’t push farther and had to pull back, but that’s another subject.
Trooper John Smith should have a blog that compiles all his comments around internettown.
Typical liberal tactic, accuse you of racism or just being racist. They know many conservatives will spend most of the conversation trying to defend themselves and fail to stir toward other subjects such as the debt.
Toss it back their face, start talking about how Dems have included the Grand Kleagle Senator Byrd and passed laws restricting rights of blacks and other minorities. Destroying black families paying the father to be absent. Failing to tackle the violence in black neighborhoods, yeah talking about you Rahm.
Liberals, what a bunch of dirtbags.
My two responses to “racism” is to ask them to define the term and to point out that more people voted for Obama because he is black then voted against him because he is black which means that the greatest number of racists are among his supporters.
And naive whites, genuinely hoping it would once and for all, make race a healed wound. Little did they realize, Obama was talking about being “post-racial” so he could sucker punch them on it.
But if you looked at him, what he was about was clear.
It’s the “Big Lie” strategy. To make Cons and Christians evil, worthy of persecution, like say the KKK, or neo nazis. To make our beliefs socially unacceptable, thus eliminating us from the political discourse.
And his making real racism acceptable has resulted in a steady increase in black on others violence. Obama and Holder have encouraged this behavior.
“Dinner table” retorts with some pounding on the table, making the dishes rattle, saying dammit…here are the facts?
Love it!
The short of it is that the soon to be 20 Trillion bucks is going to be hard to pay back whatever your political stripe.
Just tell them that.
Have the courage to just put down your fork , place some $$$ on the table & thank your hosts , but say – I fear I am not welcome in this American house. If they refuse your money suggest they send it to help pay the debt.
The bow politely & walk away.
Good suggestion. Very good. Thanks for that.
Actual unfunded US entitlement liabilities are somewhere between $86 trillion and $200+ trillion depending on what you read. Here’s a link to the “low” estimate —
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636
Bruno Lesky: Actual unfunded US entitlement liabilities are somewhere between $86 trillion and $200+ trillion depending on what you read.
Over what period?
This is why conservatives are more tolerant and liberal than Democrats. They’ve had to put up with this stuff every day, starting from birth. Dissent from their beliefs is a new experience for lefts, seeing as how they get their information from the news media, so they don’t know how to act graciously.
That is also why conservatives tend to be more articulate: they have to come up with arguments to counter the echo chamber. Also, progressives are the ones who inherited their religion and have had it reinforced in the media, schools and mainstream churches. I had to evolve into my current worldview and can remember my journey which ended with the Clarence Thomas hearings.
Awhile back I was at a casual dinner party with some academic types. They started groaning and guffawing about some horrible, evil Republican, while I sat quietly. (I’m a coward.)
Then the one non-academic type in the group spoke up — he did carpentry and such to earn his keep. He started specifying details of Mr. Evil Republican’s agenda and saying he thought some of them sounded good. There was some slightly embarrassed nodding around the room, as people were confronted with the fact that their judgment had been based on empty partisanship.
Too bad that doesn’t happen more often.
We talk about how the Left was radicalized in the 1960s, but a couple recent events of the last two decades further radicalized them:
1)The rise of Fox News, and other alternative conservative media in radio, not to mention the internet.
2)The 2000 election, and all the conspiracies that they think surround it, including 9/11 truthers, because one conspiracy about Bush links to all the others in their fevered minds.
The powers-that-be that operate the Democrats have stoked that fever ever since.
My brother brought up the “stolen” 2000 election but shut up when I pointed out that the media descended on Florida and did their own recount and Gore still lost. Imagine the media storm that would have ensued if Gore had won their recount.
I also like to point out that the SCOTUS delivered TWO votes that day: a 7 to 2 one saying that the Florida Supreme Court’s 4 to 3 decision violated the equal protection clause followed by a 5 to 4 decision not to give them a third try to get it right.
I am right there with you, Professor. I have decided that on FB I won’t post anything political but I have started responding with the following:
I have come to the conclusion that FB posts generally will not sway a single solitary soul and that when one makes a post or replies to a post, the people who like that status or make positive comments already believed what was written and the others who argue against it won’t be swayed. I’ve seen and experienced relationships ruined because of this and I’ve been thinking lately that we should treat FB as though it is a dinner party…or as our mother’s taught: politics and religion are never discussed in polite company.
I think of this as though I am from an earlier generation of women who used to call out bad behavior when they saw it. I called out a relative a few days ago for posting a nasty piece which suggested Tea Party Conservatives had no brains and the attacks on me were unbelievable. Ironically, I never once made my post political, only suggested that rude posts were inappropriate. In the end, the nasty comments stopped I think in part because I never once stooped to their level but identified the boorish name calling.
It is as though liberals believe – and conservatives concur – that they are entitled to be low class abusers. Conservatives never respond with like rhetoric because they know that the media will focus on their belligerent behavior. The truth is that the media will criticize any response, or NO response to the Left in the same terms. Go for their throats!
I live in New York. I’m sort of used to being told that everything I think, feel, believe, want and care about is WRONG WRONG WRONG! I rarely answer back because it’s pointless. They don’t listen.
One small correction Professor: It’s not intolerance. It’s bigotry. Call it that.
Bingo. I’ve been explicitly calling out such comments as “bigotry” for some time now. It’s often effective because (a) it’s true — i.e., comments such as “all conservatives are stupid racist haters” are in fact bigoted, and even liberals will sometimes admit that (in fact, one liberal actually proudly replied to me that, yes, he *is* a bigot, but only towards *that one* group [as if that made it OK!]); (b) unlike the word “racist”, which has lost most of its force due to overuse and abuse, the word “bigotry” still stings; and (c) if there’s one thing even liberals don’t like being called, it’s “bigot”.
Proverbs 15:17 (CEV)
A simple meal with love
is better than a feast
where there is hatred.
Thanksgiving ought to be mighty interesting this year.
Those who oppose Obama will always be called Racist.
Those who oppose Hillary will always be called Sexist.
Stand up, throw their words back in their face, and call the bigots by their proper name. I’ll be hiding under the table over here…
Those who supported Hillary in 2008 were called racist, but those who favored Obama over Hillary were certainly not called sexist.
Remember this classic Keith Olbermann suggestion about how to get Hillary to quit the primaries by employing “….somebody who can take her (Clinton) into a room, and only he comes out.” #WarOnWomen
Are you racist because you didn’t vote for Obama when he had zero experience, or are you racist because you voted for him based solely on his blackness? What other possible reason could there be? Patronizing is the worst form of racism because it is practiced on the assumption that person can’t do it on their own, and they need to be lifted up. That is what liberals are guilty of and it is demeaning. Not only do they disrespect the black race with this attitude, they also disrespect their own race with their dishonesty. These people deserve no respect, from blacks or whites, only contempt for the racism they practice under the guise of helping.
Those of us who don’t like Obama pay him the respect of judging him by exactly the same standards as we would judge a white person. Do Dems seriously think we’d be content to have Harry Reid in the White House? or Bill Ayers?
It wasn’t so long ago that Dems were screeching about “Clinton haters” and “hate radio.” They professed to be scandalized that people were publicly criticizing The President of the United States. They’ve forgotten all that, so now the only conceivable reason to dislike The President of the United States is because … he’s black!
Unless he’s a Republican. That’s different.
The Obamabots also pretend they’ve never heard the jokes about Biden being chosen for VP as a form of insurance. Yes, Republicans have actually suggested that the white guy would be even worse in the presidency (which I think is false, but the joke is common enough to put the lie to the “racism” meme all by itself).
Awesome.
I blame the internet. When you talk politics face-to-face you have to remain somewhat civil or you may find some stranger flattening your nose with his fist. On the internet there is no real penalty for rudeness.
I experience this at Thanksgiving dinner at some of the family gatherings (Certain sides of the family).
Last Thanksgiving was “Andrea Mitchell is a moderate. And the Tea Party wants Voter ID to suppress the Black Vote.”
I shook my head and disagreed, and got stared at for a bit. Then the conversation moved on….
It’s ALWAYS in a group setting. Because it’s a tag team debate for them. E.g. Oh, my partner is struggling in the debate, I’ll tag out. OY VEH!
I LOVE this idea. The bigotry and nastiness is a constant part of my day and has been since I worked as a non-political employee of the federal government back in the days of the Bush administration. I’ve stayed silent through all of these years, just to get along but this latest bout of nastiness has convinced me that the strategy hasn’t led to a better life for me. And if I don’t stand up for the ideas that I think lead to a better world, then I’m contributing to the mess.
So, I’ll also work on confronting the petty bigotry and cruelty that is part of the liberal-dominated landscape.
DO NOT take abuse from Leftists. I don’t… much to the chagrin of my poor wife, who cringes whenever an evening out turns into a battle royal.
I don’t start it, I merely finish it. I’m nobody’s punching bag, and if somebody whips out some personal/political insults, I get right in their face and tell them to go f*ck themselves… and if they still want some after that, I’m game. Alternatively, if the venue doesn’t lend itself to f-bombs, you can sardonically remark that those insults are funny coming from the party of history’s worst mass-murderers.
That’ll usually get it going.
Democrats don’t believe one bit of the “civility” crap they espoused after the Giffords shooting. They already think I’m an evil, sister-buggering, gun-hugging, warmongering retrograde… so I’d hate to disappoint them.
Honestly, I don’t think lefties think that about the right at all. Instead, I think it’s just a tool to silence us, since we want to be thought of as good people.
They want power. They will say and pretend to think ANYTHING, to get what they want.
Their followers might actually pretend to believe it, but again, an example: they’re anti-war until their president wants war. So they followers are mindless.
But the leadership, the leadership doesn’t believe it. Power is their principle.
shouting back at them never seems to work very well. i’ve found that (and living in the san fran bay area as i do, i run into this situation a LOT) speaking softly and/or adopting an expression of gentle indulgence…a slight grin as if amused by a child’s rant…really drives ’em nuts.
I’ve used that on occasion as well. An indulgent chuckle and some bemused sarcasm can be quite effective.
I’m just naturally a frontal-assault kind of guy, so that’s my default strategy. Most leftists are used to bullying and shaming people into acquiescence, so getting right in their face and calling them out on their BS isn’t something they’re accustomed to.
Our so-called conservative leaders ought to start tsk tsking and saying with gentle, compassionate smiles “yes, but he’s a drunk. It’s not unusual for someone who drinks as much as he does to get hostile and out of control. It’s a shame.”
Then when pushed, point out that only children or people who are high feel as if name-calling is an acceptable argument.
oh, it works well…..the “alinsky rules” reversed. My uncle, a 60’s radical retread, made a statement once about how he cannot be a racist because he has a friend “X” who is black, his dentist is black, etc. etc.
When he was done I calmly said that I had never felt compelled to put out a blanket statement to exonerate myself from any charges of “racism” and to do so must show an underlying problem with race. Boy, did the sparks fly then! the 800 lb. gorilla gained a thousand pounds and we haven’t spoken for nearly a year. So be it…..i will not back down, even if it involves losing family.
Newt Gingrich, where art thou?
Consider very carefully what really happened at that dinner.
When Pollack said he was a conservative, he was accused of being a racist. The response was yes that he was a racist.
Quite simply, Pollack was told he was a liar.
I think it is time that we respond a little differently than expected.
Before addressing the group on the issue of whether or not he is in fact a racist and getting the predictable response, ask the host or the guests if they have ever told a lie.
If they say yes, which they must, then ask them which ones are lying about voting for Obama, because you have you know someone, maybe more, there who hasn’t.
Then just shut up for the rest of the night and enjoy.
Off topic.
States roll eyes, reopen Grand Canyon, Statue of Liberty and Mt Rushmore.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/12/us-usa-fiscal-parks-idUSBRE99B00V20131012
I’ve been doing this fight for years. My biggest success in it was to point out to a high school student (at least I assume he was still in high school, based upon his apparent age), who was insisting that all Big 3 automakers had accepted the willing ‘strong’ arm of the Government during the meltdown back in 08/09. I pointed out to him, even suggesting that he look it up online, that Ford had NOT accepted the Government ‘help’ during that time and had ended up better off than the other two companies, remaining solvent.
For the racism charges, I remind them of the Dem history of slavery from the Founding, their causing of the Civil War (prior to any Emancipation Proclamation by Pres. Lincoln), the founding of the KKK by a Democrat, Jim Crow Laws, and the uncomfortable facts concerning the voting on the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. Every Democrat I’ve ever met has HATED to be reminded of the past; that is, if they ever knew it in the first place.
I like to bring up the 1924 Klanbake Convention in NYC in which a slight majority of delegates to the DNC voted to maintain the Democrat Party’s quasi-official relationship with the KKK.
CD- their argument has always been: “Those Democrats are now the Republicans”. That is the point at which one (as suggested by others in this thread) roll their eyes, chuckle, grin, or otherwise show contempt for the predictable response. They simply do not think. They all regurgitate the same crud each time one of them opens their mouth whether they live in New York or California.
Fighting back is actually quite enjoyable provided you don’t get angry. The whole point of the libs is that their emotions get the best of them. We all know they relish speaking to conservatives is the most derogatory manner their minds can imagine which is fine with me. I don’t take it personally as they really do not understand the path that their language can take.
Once had a conversation with a gay guy. With a big smirk in his face he started denouncing the Catholic priests. My response, with a sly smile and an innocent tone…”well I have never heard of a Catholic priest molesting a young girl…
Never had that type of conversation with him again and we have worked with each other for the past fifteen years.
“Some time ago, on another site, I created a term for them. TWANLOC. Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen.”
“the outcome will be real enslavement…”
“The reason I haven’t responded back is even simpler: I would kill them.”
“what a bunch of dirtbags.”
“It’s not intolerance. It’s bigotry. Call it that.”
“the party of history’s worst mass-murderers.”
Around 100 million in the 20th century alone. That does not include several hundred million human lives aborted. They really are an objectionable subset of humanity.
Are you saying the “mass-murderers” jab is too harsh? (it’s historically accurate, BTW… the Socialists/Communists have put more people into the ground in the last century than the Nazis ever DREAMED of killing. That rejoinder also helps when you’re called a Nazi).
If you’re uncomfortable with that one, try this one.
Since it’s a race-based insult you received, you could also remark how funny it is to hear that insult from a modern-day slaver. Then you can mention the Moynihan Report (written by a New York Democrat), where he points out that the destruction of the black family is the root of much of their social pathology. Then segue into the welfare state’s subsidization of the illegitimacy rate, with a resulting enslavement of more black Americans than any plantation owner EVER. Then ask how sick somebody would have to be to support a system like that.
Punch back twice as hard.
“Around 100 million in the 20th century alone. That does not include several hundred million human lives aborted. They really are an objectionable subset of humanity.”
“modern-day slaver”
I see.
Thanks for wasting everyones’ time.
Bones: I see.
Equating liberals with the most extreme views on the political left is no more accurate or fair than equating conservatives with the most extreme views on the political right.
Literally for a half century; anyone who loves the country, the Constitution, has any sort of religious faith, or who is not a protected class minority has been told that they are irredeemably the enemy of humanity. Race, gender, faith, heterosexual preferences, insistence on the rule of law and the Constitution all place you beyond the Pale. We are told that we are hated 24/7 in all forms of the media, by our news organizations, by Leftists of all stripes including the Democratic Party in every format possible including screaming loudly in our faces, our property is fair game to be destroyed at will, and that “hate crime” only applies when the victim is a protected class. That we will be destroyed, in fact the president’s earliest political mentor terrorist William Ayers in whose living room Obama’s first political run was plotted, has called for the “elimination” of the 10-15% of the American population that will not be “re-educated”.
In the last few years we have seen the Constitution and Bill of Rights gutted, the Executive Branch repeatedly placing itself above the rule of law, and every mechanism for the imposition of a police state put in place. The Executive Branch is open and blatant about using the resources of the government to attack political opponents. And the last few days, we have seen that Federal law enforcement will follow orders to attack the American people.
They do not consider us to be fellow citizens who happen to hold different opinions than they do. They regard us as mortal enemies to be destroyed.
It is time that we took their own words and actions to mean what they say they do. And react appropriately. The cranial expansion comes from having the terrifying prospect of a half century of our passive submission possibly coming to an end.
Subotai Bahadur: Literally for a half century; anyone who loves the country, the Constitution, has any sort of religious faith, or who is not a protected class minority has been told that they are irredeemably the enemy of humanity.
The U.S. Congress:
99% religious
99% professed heterosexual
83% male
85% white
Subotai Bahadur: “hate crime” only applies when the victim is a protected class
About one-in-six hate crimes are due to anti-white bias.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2011/narratives/victims
Subotai Bahadur: In the last few years we have seen the Constitution and Bill of Rights gutted, the Executive Branch repeatedly placing itself above the rule of law, and every mechanism for the imposition of a police state put in place.
The biggest threat comes from the technological surveillance state, which has been dramatically expanded since the Bush Administration.
“Why not just ask why they like to kill women and children?”
“Liberal Fascist”
I have found that the –Shock and awe– approach works very well. When faced with the small minded rude comment from an individual I pronounce them a Liberal Fascist on the spot followed if needed by Extreme Bigot. The best approach to these bullies is massive retaliation.
I dunno: maybe Liberals are more rude in person–but if you are suspected of RINOism I assure you there’s no surfit of civility. You should see my FaceBook page.
Liberals have been acting like their view is the only legitimate one for decades. More than 40 years ago when I was in graduate school one of the “distinguished” professors made a point in class that I responded to with a question about what a particular leading conservative theorist on the issue might say in response. He replied that he’d never heard of that theorist. Similarly, that theorist’s books weren’t in the library. I went to the Dean and complained about the lack of academic credibility such exclusion evidenced. The Dean was visibly embarrassed and in fact arranged for that theorist to be a guest speaker in the following academic year.
What’s changed in 40 years? I suspect that today the same lack of awareness of alternative views would not be an embarrassment but evidence of academic excellence. How far we have fallen.
The problem here is that the liberals are vested in, truly believe, the notion that the only thing that has been holding down certain segments of the population is plain old bigotry, both intentional and by the operation of subtle circumstance (socio-economic, assistance by parental connections, etc.). This is why they still are vested in affirmative action.
Obama was to be the great validation for them. In their minds, their entire ideology would have been proved if they could find the perfect candidate to demonstrate the “end of racism” and do away with it once and for all. They not only wanted a black man to become president but also wanted him to be globally proclaimed as one of the country’s greatest presidents.
Thus, they carefully chose someone they thought was unable to be criticized in any way, someone they thought was attractive, brilliant, well-spoken, well-educated via affirmative action, etc. A flawless black man, unlike people such as Allen West, or Ben Carson, or other black men who (in the liberal mind) are flawed in some way. From the beginning they were certain that the ONLY criticism of Obama could be racial.
Thus if Obama fails, it can only be because he is black. They cannot accept that their personal assessment about the man otherwise could have been wrong and that they themselves were biased by race. If Obama fails, if it is not racial animus, then there is something wrong with them and their beliefs. They are hysterical now in their confusion and cognitive dissonance. To them, every failure of Obama IS a personal attack against them.
For too long conservatives have sanctimoniously told each other “don’t sink to their level, take the high road.”
We can see how well that has worked. The low information voter “assumes” the harsh attacks against us must be true because we don’t fight them. We’re the only ones complaining about the nastiness and low class conduct of the Left. Maybe it’s time to accept that the average person is rather low-class.
IMO the Right should NEVER allow the slurs/snarks/bashes to go unchallenged.
The other day I was chatting with one of my neighbors, an ophthalmologist who happens to be black. Current politics came up and she made a crack about “white racist Tea Party people,” even though she knows I am conservative and quite white. I thought, “Damn, I’m not taking this anymore,” so I said to her, (NAME), you voted for Obama because he’s black, right?” “Yes,” she sniffed proudly, ever so slightly lifting her nose. “Well, good for you.” I said. “But don’t assume I oppose him for the same reason.” She had no response. I guess she was reluctant to call me a racist, and she surely didn’t want to get into a discussion on policy failures with me, which she would have lost.
[…] Side are with people who don’t want to be rude to me, but I can still see that it’s getting out of hand […]
When the leadership of the Republican Party does not push back against the leadership of the Democratic Party for the name-calling and taunts, it’s an invitation to more attacks, and it sets a national tone.
That inactivity among Republicans was one of the worst features of the GW Bush administration. It set the trend which Mr. Jacobson addresses, a decade late, in this article.
The behavior of Bush himself was admirable – he kept his mind and his speeches on the needs of the country as he saw them. But his failure to appoint one or more officials to rebut and return Democrat – and media! – slurs and insults acted as an invitation for more slurs, more insults, more criticism and the general feeling that the whole administration just didn’t get it, and should be replaced by its exact opposite.
Hence the election of the man least qualified to act as President of all of us, and most useful to the chaotic takedown of American democracy.
Witness this week’s Economist, witlessly deriding Congress for allowing one branch of government to actually represent its constituents, and practically demanding an authoritarian ‘progressive’ override of the Constitution.
I’ve been applying ‘Broken Windows’ since turning on to politics in 2009.
And I’m sorry that not enough self-professed conservatives feel the need to do the same. They find it easier to just belabor the point about how the GOP isn’t doing enough this or that.
I have been and will continue to actively and swiftly rebuke any family member, colleagues and even the people standing in line who refers to Republicans and the Tea party in the pejorative.
Our reaction should be a reflexive “Oh no you didn’t!!!”
OK, here’s a difficulty I typically have with this sort of confrontation. I’ll be involved in a conversation about some topic that is not inherently political, say some aspect of science or music, and someone in the group will throw in an offhand political jab, maybe implying that someone is racist. The jab is completely irrelevant to the conversation and for that reason stupid, and rather than get detoured into something I hadn’t wanted to talk about I attempt to refocus on the topic at hand.
The net result, however, is that the trashy remarks are usually unchallenged, leaving me with an underlying sense of dissatisfaction. I wonder whether there’s another way to react, without exploding every conversation I get involved in.
I don’t even bother with leftists anymore. What’s the point?
If they start spewing political garbage on Facebook? I defriend them. If they start spewing political garbage in person? I dismissively wave my hand and walk away.
There’s no sense in even trying to engage them anymore. So, I don’t.
Life’s too short to be wasting my time with today’s left, and I’m much happier for it.
Yep, no reason to throw pearls before swine.
[…] Subotai Bahadur | October 12, 2013 at 10:03 pm […]
Want to drive a liberal nuts? After one gives his two-cents worth say, “Aaaaaand?” They will start talking to further explain when they are done making their point ask, “Because?” On they go again. When they take a breath, “Aand?”. By now they are talking in circles and sometimes even begin to realize they are talking in circles and not making any sense and it is rather entertaining to see one realize they know jack sheet about what they are talking about. . . No debate, just let them hang themselves.
Why not just ask why they like to kill women and children? Very legitimate question when you look at history. Watch their heads explode!
My Poor Wife! About 13 years ago, I had enough. We live in Los Angeles, enough said. I had always been a very shy, and private man, especially when it came to politics. Then one day at a dinner party the conversation veered into politics. I challenged the bluff liberal who bullied anyone who dare argue with him. Soon enough the house was shaking, all the women left to another room, as I was being yelled by numerous guests as I calmly argued my case. When the bully left the party slamming the door, one of the guests quietly approached me he said in a conspiratorial whisper. You are used to being the only Republican I smiled 🙂 Since that day I confront the bullys whenever I meet them. In the words of Rush I unleash my Conservative Sword to Battle! 🙂
1> The same Creator who told us to turn the other cheek, gave us a total of four cheeks to turn … and a mind to determine when an alternative course of action is prudent, before we run out of cheeks.
2> Civility in response to intellectual dishonesty is counterproductive in the defense of liberty … for it grants the dishonesty undeserved respect and a patina of legitimacy that may deceive others into embracing the dishonesty.
So Progressives …
WE’LL STOP THE YELLIN’ … WHEN Y’ALL STOP THE LYIN’!
As an aside… Mark Levin just shared this post on Facebook. 🙂