Polanski and when it's time to leave liberalism

October 2, 1:37 PMHartford Conservative ExaminerJohn Talleos

Previous Next

31 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Hartford Conservative Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

   Previously in this space it was stated  that liberals “are off the mark about what they think conservatism is”.  It's a statement vindicated by former leftist who switched sides not only because the right was not what they thought it was-entailing the usual shopping list of intolerance, greed and heartlessness-but also what they found as the logical results of what they were fighting for and then finding within their own ranks a mind-set of blind anger, nihilism and thuggery.  

  Earlier incantations of this political change-of-minds had to them a common thread.  In the 1930's it was Stalins insatiable appetite for murder and famine and the his ill-fated pact with Hitler that produced defections toward the anti-communist movement.   The next era came during the sixties and seventies when millions of Vietnam and Cambodians were slaughtered at hands of the regimes liberals had championed when out of power and once in power enacted wholesale genocide.   In both were the realization that social control of populations with visions of utopia would inevitably lead to human carnage.  Also was the sense that the left only gave lip service to justice and equality.  

  We may be experiencing a new generation of liberal apostasy.  Two notable reasons for this are the election of president Obama and the defense of Roman Polanski.   In the case of Obama's campaign was the vitriol leveled at Hillary Clinton supporters.  In the The American Thinker is the writer Robin of Berkeley   who writes in a column “Letter of amends from a recovering liberal”:

 "An acquaintance had her car broken into, and the only item stolen was a NoObama bumper sticker. A South Park episode featured an episode where a nuclear weapon was being aimed at Hillary's genitals...

 Things went from bad to worse when Sarah Palin entered the scene. When Geraldine Ferraro ran for Vice President, there was no debasement of her character, no sexual threats. But with Palin, a full scale "wilding" ensued that chillingly reminded me of the random sexual attacks on women by gangs of men in New York. She was called every vile name in the book by both male and female liberals.

 ...When Palin's church was torched with children inside, the press was missing in action (somehow I imagine the press would have been all over this if Obama's church were torched). Not only was the misogyny disgusting, but the classism was abhorrent. The Democrats, by ridiculing Palin's voice and her education, were acting like arrogant snobs. The party had changed, I had changed, and the differences looked irreconcilable.

 The final straw for me was when a close friend flew into a rage at me when she learned I wasn't supporting Obama. The political became personal when she began impugning my character....

 Suddenly a light went on. The peace and love and flower power of the old left was dead and gone (if it even existed to begin with except in my imagination). The Democrats had morphed into a power hungry Thought Police, and I was done with them. My new motto in life: don't PC on me.”

   In a more egregious example is the defense of director Roman Polanski's rape of a 13 year old and using drugs to do it.  Writing in the preeminent liberal magazine The Nation, liberal writer Katha Pollitt at least sticks to her liberal guns and gives a full frontal assault to her leftist compatriots:
 
  “It's enraging that literary superstars who go on and on about human dignity, and human rights, and even women's rights (at least when the women are Muslim) either don't see what Polanski did as rape, or don't care, because he is, after all, Polanski--an artist like themselves. That some of his defenders are women is particularly disappointing. Don't they see how they are signing on to arguments that blame the victim, minimize rape, and bend over backwards to exonerate the perpetrator? Error of youth, might have mistaken her age, teen slut, stage mother--is that what we want people to think when middle-aged men prey on ninth-graders?

The widespread support for Polanski shows the liberal cultural elite at its preening, fatuous worst. They may make great movies, write great books, and design beautiful things, they may have lots of noble humanitarian ideas and care, in the abstract, about all the right principles: equality under the law, for example. But in this case, they're just the white culture-class counterpart of hip-hop fans who stood by R. Kelly and Chris Brown and of sports fans who automatically support their favorite athletes when they're accused of beating their wives and raping hotel workers.
No wonder Middle America hates them.”
 

 Although Pollitt many or may not switch sides anytime soon as Robin of Berkeley has,  in both is the realization that wait a minute, this isn't what I signed up for.   The Polanski rape case may be analogous of what another liberal apostate, Ronald Reagan, when he said “I didn't leave the Democratic party the party left me”.  In the case of Pollitt it's not that she left liberalism but the movement went insane.  Note the reactions to her article with some who defend Polanski with mind-boggling wrongheadedness:

  “I am very courious if all these people who will have Polansky in jail, what they think and do about politicians who are responsible for war in Iraq with some hundred thousand killed. And there are the daughteres of Iraquis raped and raped, because they need money to live.”

 and in that same vein:

  “I am really courious, what have Ms. Pollitt or the lawyer Ms. Geraldine A. Ferraro (in NYT) done to bring Bush & Co to jail.”

  These were dubious moral equivalent arguments conservatives come to expect from the left.  But then there are these:

 “oh the pinch faced moralists. tsk, tsk...there are two crimes to talk about. one is the crime of statutory rape, which unlike just plain rape is not a crime of violence, since the victim likely consented...”

 Of course of course, how could we have missed that?   He can drug the poor child, render her comatose then rape her, but as long as he didn't slap her or anything like that.  The extraordinary comment continues:

 “y'all should be ashamed of yourself, so ready to cast the first stone. especially you Bushfools. Polanski is not accused of multiple sex crimes.” 

 Not all comments were of this type, most of which defended Pollitt.  The “y'all” was a reference to them. 
 But the moral hairsplitting continued:

  “First, Ms. Pollit, a 13 or 15-year old is not a "very young girl" or even a 'young girl.' She is a girl or even a very young or young woman. A four-year old or six-year old is a very young girl, and as far as I know, Polanski has never been accused of having sex with pre-pubescent girls.”

 Yea Ms Pollitt, see he isn't all that bad.  She was young girl not young young girl which made her fair game.  The lunacy of this comment goes on to excuse ALL crimes with:

 “....Given the history in this country of cops, prosecutors and judges cutting corners, withholding evidence and railroading defendants into jail and on to death row, why is anyone, especially on the left, surprised that someone jumped bail rather than get chucked into prison for several years contrary to his deal with the judge and DA?    Polanski's crime was evil, but I can't support compounding judicial misconduct by calling for him to be jailed now. The system can't get a second bite.”

  Since this missive seems to think the whole judicial ball of wax is not up to left-wing standards, evil ought to get a pass.

  And then there is the aw shucks guys calm down, because this is no big deal.  This isn't about rape or anything of a sort.  This broohaa boils down to “...middle-aged post-menopausal women [Pollitt, hint hint] who wish they were young again [ah the joys of date-rape] and middle-aged married men who have lost hope of ever sleeping with a young woman again. Jealousy.”

  Let the schism begin.