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.
Comments
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.