As any regular reader of this blog knows, my wife Karen is a political junkie. She thrives in exchanging thoughts with those who oppose her, dealing mostly in facts but occasionally veering into denouncing the party if not its adherents. She rarely if ever engages in defamatory conduct, at best mildly rebuking someone for an inane comment or, more likely, correcting someone's grammar or syntax that should have been mastered decades ago.
Karen is a very tolerant conservative. She might object to a point of view, or to a particular post, but she doesn't deal in ad hominem attacks. Her posts can be testy, to be sure, but she's generally respectful of her opponent.
The same is not true of her opponents. Unlike Karen, who can make mordant even pithy comments about liberalism, tenets of liberalism or the liberal politicians themselves -- all fair game by any measure -- her liberal opponents know no boundaries. She's been called shameful -- by an aunt, no less (I completed the estrangement by suggesting that doing such a thing was ignorant and petty; the woman's son, Karen's cousin, got quite pissy with me for calling his mother ignorant and petty. If the shoe fits, fine, but another aspect of modern-day liberalism is an inability to comprehend simple English), someone suffering from cognitive dissonance and far, far worse.
There's an old saw in the law that goes something like this: When the law's on one's side, argue the law. When the facts are on one's side, argue the facts. When neither the law nor the facts are on one's side, shout as loudly as one can.
That, in a nutshell, is the playbook of modern liberal discourse.
That such lunatics exist on the conservative side is indisputable. Every group has its fringe element. The problem with liberalism -- at least in the United States -- is that the fringe is almost the core element. Conservatism eschews rabid lunatics, generally, and prefers to dwell in rhetoric, empiricism and debate. For liberals, debate and rhetoric involves namecalling, belittling of one's opponent, using outdated statistics to buttress a position and generally treating one's opponent as if it's a truculent child in need of a time-out. The pat on the head is not as benign as it's meant to seem.
There's a very narrow minority within liberalism that can debate without reducing itself to the lowest common denominator within its sect. The problem is that the Al Sharptons, the Jesse Jacksons, the Harry Reids, the Nancy Pelosis, the Debbie Wasserman-Schultzes and the like appear more often and more loudly. Ironically, the Hollyweird wing of the sect tries to sound erudite, but that group often lapses into outdated facts and illogical arguments.
Online, the noise coming from liberals mirrors what's seen in the mainstream. Vicious attacks usually descend upon a person who's not drunk the Kool-Aid of the Left. No attempt to reason or persuade takes place -- well, no mature attempt anyway -- replaced instead by character assassination and decibels. That liberals think this is positive discourse is troubling.
Godwin's Law Alert: When the Nazis rose to power, they effectively silenced their opposition by bullying, incorrect facts and loud sounds -- not to mention outright murder. The Communists before them used the tactics. Virtually every discredited political system that rose to power has used underhanded tactics to topple a stronger opponent. Making transparently false promises, lying about the opponents or their positions and drowning out the opponents has translated into victory for liberals.
Liberalism as a movement -- like communism -- has some very good and recommendable tenets. Unfortunately, it's been corrupted by the power that it's acquired, thereby transforming it into something almost recognizable. If that sounds unbelievable, try to square liberalism with the current notion that opposing viewpoints aren't worthy of being aired. To wit, if one disagrees with abortion, voicing that opinion must be drowned out.
Rahm Emanuel, the mayor of Chicago and a cunning political operative, infamously suggested that no crisis should ever be wasted. Is that purity of belief? It's Machiavellian, it's politically astute, but is it what liberalism is all about?
If anyone doubts this, spend some time on Facebook or Twitter and watch the political discussions. See if they track what I say. Then ask: Is one side actually trying to persuade the other? Is one side trying to cudgel the other into submission?
My wife engages in political debate because for her, it's sport. But at its core its a very serious matter. The very existence of our country rests on robust, active debate and exchange of ideas.
Haymakers, bullying and threats are not debate.
Liberalism should be ashamed of its adherents.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No comments:
Post a Comment