"A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take away everything you have."
Showing posts with label hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hypocrisy. Show all posts

Thursday, March 8, 2012

The Hypocrisy of the Left

Michelle Malkin has a great column out showing the mind-blowing double standard of the left-wing media when it comes to civility towards women. She lays out the case pretty compellingly, quote by quote. Kirsten Powers, a refreshingly honest Democratic consultant, has recently done the same thing.

There are some more worthwhile comments on this topic from Jim Geraghty's blog The Campaign Spot here and here. And James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal has some interesting thoughts on a broader related them -- the cultural contradictions of feminism.

The bottom line is, if you are a conservative, you should expect to be accused of hating women, gays, immigrants, blacks, Muslims, Mormons, and the poor. (Or even if you're not conservative - just ask Juan Williams.) You should expect to be accused of being racist, intolerant, and backward and of being against science and against the separation of church and state. The epithets will be much worse if you are an outspokenly conservative woman or an outspokenly conservative black, because such people break the mold in a way that threatens the Left.

That's not to say there isn't nastiness and hate on the Right as well. There certainly is. Nor is it to say all liberals are nasty and hateful, because they certainly aren't. Some of my nicest co-workers are liberal. But I believe that vulgarity and hate are far more prevalent on the institutional Left than the institutional Right. Part of this, I believe, is due to Leftist ideology that tends to divide people into different racial and demographic groups for the purpose of addressing grievances and promoting equality of outcome. I have found that Leftists often tend to assume things like all women are pro-choice or all blacks are in favor of affirmative-action, and if they are not then they are somehow betraying their niche group. (Conservatives generally prefer to think of people not as African-Americans, or gay Americans, or Latino Americans, or female Americans, but just Americans.) And of course, this strategy of dividing people along racial or demographic lines is an important part of the Democrats' political strategy, because they depend on overwhelming support from niche racial and demographic voting blocs for their overall success as a party.

But I think the primary reason for the prevalence of vulgarity and hate on the institutional Left compared with the Right is the simple fact that it is far easier to get away with it if you are on the Left. Pretty much all of the liberals cited by Michelle Malkin faced no public outcry or serious consequences for their comments due to media bias and selective reporting. Conservatives, even ones as powerful as Rush, cannot slide by so easily. If, in an alternative universe, the media was dominated by conservatives, I suspect we would see a greater predominance of hate on the Right. In a polarized political environment like the current one, people tend to say whatever they think they can get away with.

UPDATE: Kirsten Powers has written a follow-up column on the double-standard of the media when it comes to misogyny, and it is outstanding! Read it here. Among other things, she notes that Bill Maher is slated to have top Obama advisor David Axelrod appearing on his show in a week or two, and also that Maher donated $1 million to an Obama super-PAC run by a long-time Obama aide. (We found out today that the Obama super-PAC has no intention of returning that money. After all, Maher supports Obama, so his comments about women are no big deal.) Powers adds that Keith Olbermann, another liberal noted for his respect toward women, viciously attacked her for her column on his show, and his followers then contacted her en masse to tell her, among other things, that she was "just another brainless plastic doll Fox puts on camera to appease the horned up 60-year-old white dudes at home.” (These people cannot help themselves.) She notes in conclusion that "the uproar over Limbaugh is only because it fits into the Democratic narrative that the GOP is 'anti-woman.' It’s Democratic Party activism dressed up as feminism."

Oh yeah, and guess who is slated to speak at the upcoming Radio and Television Correspondents Association Dinner? Another left-wing "comedian" who has said unbelievably vile and disgusting things about women, including Sarah Palin. So all these self-important media types who are so exercised about Rush Limbaugh are apparently quite happy to go listen to Louis C.K., who is ten times worse than Rush. At least one journalist, Greta van Susteren, has the guts to speak out against this double standard. Here is her statement about boycotting this event. How many other journalists will do the same?

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

"Al-Qaeda, Yes; Defense of Marriage Act, No

Well, it's been a long time since I've posted here, but tax season is now over and I hope to start posting regularly again now that I have some free time! At the moment I am working on a long article on the topic of gay marriage which I hope to have ready to post in the next week or two.

In the meantime, I wanted to share a great link to an article by Andrew McCarthy of National Review Online entitled "Al-Qaeda, Yes; Defense of Marriage Act, No." McCarthy exposes the hypocrisy of the law firm King & Spalding, which has willingly defended all sorts of the vilest people from terrorists to murderers and rapists, but is now refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court. The same is true of Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General, who presides over a Justice Department whose lawyers have willingly volunteered their time to assist Al-Qaeda terrorists but refuse to defend DOMA, a law passed by large bipartisan Congressional majorities a mere 15 years ago, signed by President Clinton, and supported by a majority of the American people.

Of course, the greatest hypocrisy of all comes from gay rights activists, led by the Human Rights Campaign, who used threats and intimidation to get King & Spalding to drop their legal defense of DOMA. For more on these threats see this article from The Weekly Standard's website. The gay rights lobby claims to stand for tolerance, understanding, and diversity of ideas. Except they have no tolerance for anyone who stands in their way. Their goal is to ensure that DOMA gets no reasonable defense in court whatsoever, and they will do whatever it takes to silence their opponents.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Double Standard


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has created quite a buzz in the political world with the revelation of his comments during the 2008 election campaign about Barack Obama. A book about to be published reveals that Reid called Obama "light skinned" and a candidate "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

I personally don't think these comments are racist, though they are certainly insensitive and crass. The thing that really upsets me about this is the shocking double standard. All the people who are usually up in arms about racial discrimination or insensitivity in this country are giving Reid a complete pass. The Congressional Black Caucus, which went ballistic over allegedly racist comments by Rush Limbaugh and Trent Lott, issued a statement offering strong support for Reid. Even more shocking, Rev. Al Sharpton, who makes his living by stirring up racial controversy and is about as sensitive as they come to real or imagined prejudice, also made a statement brushing off Reid's comments and offering his unqualified support for Reid's continuance as Senate Majority Leader (since he apologized!). The NAADP (National Association for the Advancement of the Democratic Party) has also been pretty quiet. These people claim to speak for the black community, but it seems that in reality they only speak for the Democratic party agenda.

As I have said in a previous post, I personally think our culture is far too quick to brand people as "racist" with far too little evidence. This hyper-sensitivity makes it very difficult to discuss racial issues openly and honestly, and destroys the reputations of many good people who are unfairly branded as prejudiced. But worse than the hyper-sensitivity is the incredible double standard perpetrated by Democrats, leaders of the black community, and the media. Basically it comes down to this: the Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, Maxine Waters's, and Kweisi Mfumes of America wield racist grievances like a club to attack conservatives, while behaving with complete indifference to racial insensitivities perpetrated by liberals. The vast majority of liberals in the Democratic party and the media are just as guilty of this double standard, because they go along with it instead of exposing it. It's not just Harry Reid. The Vice-President of the U.S., Joe Biden, said during the 2008 campaign that Obama was “the first mainstream African American [presidential candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia is a former Ku Klux Klan member who has a history of using racial slurs. Yet, Biden and Byrd continue to be well-respected leaders in the Democratic party. What Republican could get away with saying and doing these things and maintain a respected position in public life?