RSS
Home
Racism, sexism, and liberal theology.
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Monday, June 15, Journal Sentinel Online had a blog by James Causey entitled “He referred to Michelle Obama as a gorilla.” It got me thinking about how the left views words and the people who use them. In the blog, Causey states, “Some people may defend DePass given the jokes told about Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh recently, but referring to a black woman as an ape is about as low as you can go.” The good news is that the vast majority of the comments posted regarding this blog went something like this- ‘What are you talking about? Both of the comments are offensive, both deserve condemnation, and this is why so many are no longer listening to whining from the left.’ It is apparent that more and more people are sick and tired of the same old rants from lefties who can’t seem to realize that personal attacks are starting to lose their appeal, especially when it is the only thing liberals have to contribute to political discourse.
The bad news is that liberals seem to be unable to progress beyond screaming, “Racist! Homophobe!! Bigot!!” when they are at a loss for an argument based on the facts. Interesting situation for those who like to call themselves “progressive” isn’t it? I’ve written before regarding my belief that liberals rarely win arguments when only the merits of each side are discussed. (I believe that a partial explanation for this is the old saying that some people are so open-minded their brains have fallen out.) The left’s best hope lies in trying to influence casual observers by calling conservatives every name they can think of as many times as they can in the hope that if they throw enough mud up against the wall some will stick. Two instances of this strategy stand out above all others: Clarence Thomas’ hearing when nominated as a Justice of the Supreme Court and the treatment Sarah Palin has received over the last nine months.
Students of history and those of us old enough and interested enough will remember the Clarence Thomas hearings and Anita Hill’s accusations of “sexual harassment” against Mr. Thomas. My purpose here is not to reargue the case which liberals seem to think has never been settled. I will point out that any person who had a spotless record and was accused under the circumstances of the Hill accusations with no evidence except the accuser’s word would unquestionably be given the benefit of the doubt. Had there been substantiating evidence- it would have been broadcast by any and all of the mainstream media. Remember, Ms. Hill followed Thomas to EEOC after working with him at the Department of Education, odd behavior for one who felt sexually harassed.
The reason I mention the Thomas hearings is a comment made by Florynce Kennedy at a National Organization of Women Conference in July of 1991. “We’re going to ‘bork’ him.” She told the conference, referring to the coordinated liberal attack that derailed Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987. Bork’s crime was twofold: first he was part of the famous “Saturday Night Massacre” during the Watergate Scandal; second he was a conservative. I believe the conservative label is what really scared liberals. The point is this: the campaign against Bork set the blueprint for the kind of mudslinging that the left hoped to use to derail the Thomas nomination.
Sarah Palin has been subjected to the same kind of vicious campaign to destroy her personally since she was selected as John McCain’s running mate last August. She has been attacked by left-wing bloggers, democrat party hacks, and the media. Once again, the attacks are almost never on the issues but instead on her personal life and her family. Governor Palin’s personal appearance was criticized, she was attacked for being a hunter, and for her “lack of experience” when her experience was considered by many to be comparable to that of Obama. Her 17 year old daughter Bristol was catapulted into the spotlight when it was revealed that she was pregnant. Once the election was over one would have thought the attacks would cease but they continued and in some ways intensified.
Why were the attacks on both Justice Thomas and Governor Palin so personal? One reason is that the left struggles any time debate is limited solely to the issues. Only by muddying the waters with personal attacks can the left hope to win by marginalizing those whose policy positions are vastly superior. This goes on regularly in what passes for political discourse today. However, I believe that there is a more sinister reason the left has attempted to destroy both Thomas and Palin with the type of vitriol unacceptable in polite conversation almost everywhere:
Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin represent an existential threat to liberals and liberalism simply by their success. Clarence Thomas broke from the tradition of Thurgood Marshall, Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters, and yes, Barak Obama in his political philosophy. By succeeding he called into question whether the Democrat Party and the left are the only avenues available for African-Americans. Sarah Palin has done the same thing to the National Organization for Women and their ilk with her political positions. She has made matters even worse from the left’s perspective by living out her beliefs in a very public way. The birth of her son Trig sent those radicals in NARAL and NOW into a hysterical panic. For years, they had preached that abortion was the answer for a “fetus” with physical defects; in fact, it was the “better (final) solution”.
Along comes the Governor of Alaska. She’s pregnant and pregnant with a Down syndrome baby. She not only carries the baby to full term, but returns to work almost immediately and brings her child with her to work. Then she compounds the heresy by publicly telling all who will listen what a blessing her son is to her and her family. Later in the presidential campaign (after false rumors of the baby really being her daughter Bristol’s) the family announced that Bristol was pregnant and she was going to have the baby. Margaret Sanger was spinning in her grave. The media and the left made much of this as well despite pleas from many, including Obama himself to leave candidates families out of the fray.
Those whose political fortunes rest on gathering more and more “converts” to liberal theology can’t stand the heresy of any minority or female who succeeds as a conservative and especially a public and unapologetic conservative. More than 300 years ago people were burned at the stake for “heresy”. I believe many on the left wish they could get away with such a punishment today. Don’t believe me?- check out this quote from Julianne Malveaux in November of 1994 regarding Clarence Thomas: “The man is on the court, you know. I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that’s how I feel. He’s an absolutely reprehensible person.” Thanks to Ms. Malveaux we can all see the tolerance of the left displayed.
