Last Refuge of a Liberal

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
Op-Ed Here

Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."

That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.

What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument. The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president's proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.

Then came Arizona and S.B. 1070. It seems impossible for the left to believe that people of good will could hold that: (a) illegal immigration should be illegal, (b) the federal government should not hold border enforcement hostage to comprehensive reform, i.e., amnesty, (c) every country has the right to determine the composition of its immigrant population.

As for Proposition 8, is it so hard to see why people might believe that a single judge overturning the will of 7 million voters is an affront to democracy? And that seeing merit in retaining the structure of the most ancient and fundamental of all social institutions is something other than an alleged hatred of gays -- particularly since the opposite-gender requirement has characterized virtually every society in all the millennia until just a few years ago?

And now the mosque near Ground Zero. The intelligentsia is near unanimous that the only possible grounds for opposition is bigotry toward Muslims. This smug attribution of bigotry to two-thirds of the population hinges on the insistence on a complete lack of connection between Islam and radical Islam, a proposition that dovetails perfectly with the Obama administration's pretense that we are at war with nothing more than "violent extremists" of inscrutable motive and indiscernible belief. Those who reject this as both ridiculous and politically correct (an admitted redundancy) are declared Islamophobes, the ad hominem du jour.

It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright mean"?

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.



Move over "but Bush" here comes the all encompassing "Bigot Card". I don't like your views, even though the majority agree; you all must be bigots. One only needs to read these forums daily to see the trend (on a smaller scale), the "bigot" label gets thrown onto those with opposing viewpoints, and almost exclusively by our more liberal friends.






<---------prepared to be called a bigot
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
26,387
12,526
136
I'll play the Prof's game. Sour Krauthammer. Nuff said.

Also, I sure the right still thinks the Washington Post is a left leaning newspaper.

I guess they're trying to compete with the Moony funded Washington Times.
 
Last edited:

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
One only needs to read these forums daily to see the trend (on a smaller scale), the "bigot" label gets thrown onto those with opposing viewpoints, and almost exclusively by our more liberal friends.

<---------prepared to be called a bigot

One only needs to read these forums daily to see the transparent display of victimization perpetrated almost exclusively by our more conservative friends and their sock puppets.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
One only needs to read these forums daily to see the transparent display of victimization perpetrated almost exclusively by our more conservative friends and their sock puppets.

LOL, so are the conservatives the victims or the victimizers?

The left no longer has Bush to blame everything on so they really need to learn that the myraid of differences in people that the left claims to put on a pedestal applies to everyone and everybody.

We all have our opinions and in most cases who is to say that one is better then the other?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,218
10,506
136
Move over "but Bush" here comes the all encompassing "Bigot Card".

Here comes? Hell, around P&N that card might as well be a dead horse with a string of group-think liberals having screamed it from the mountains to the sea and back again this past year.

Just check out this jewel for a large taste. Post #134 down.
 
Last edited:

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
racecard.jpg
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,501
20,100
146
Well, the author is only half right. Those who backed prop 8 are bigots.

Those who back Arizona may or may not be bigots, but the mere act of opposing illegal immigration and the chaos it brings with it is not bigoted.

Prop 8 is the majority voting away the rights of a minority. The very definition of bigotry.

Arizona is enforcing law and securing our nation's borders. Not about targeting any one group. NOT bigotry.

The author needs to try again.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Prop 8 was also heavily funded by Mormons in Utah, so "the will of 7 million voters" was influenced by the propaganda of zealots from outside the state.

Arizona is a valid example of the failure of liberals -- they failed to offer immigration reform, yet refuse to enforce the existing laws instead.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Charles Krauthammer is an evil propagandist who it's best not to read.

For just one example of countless, one of the major propaganda terms of the last decade was one that let one side use it to marginalize the entire opposition to 'their side', while encouraging its side to parrot the phrase as an alternative to listening to, much less discussing, any facts: "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Krauthammer coined the phrase.

Yes, righties, relax about the thousands of facts showing Bush having a radical agenda bad for the country, you don't have to listen. "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Of course, this is really simply a phrase to manipulate his own side to stay in the ranks, rather than to get informed and recognize their mistakes, just as Al Queda has propaganda to reinforce its twisted world view on its followers.

Krauthammer is a soldier for the bad guys, and all too good at his mission of duping good people into supporting bad.

I'm sure without checking Media Matters has a big file on the facts for those honest enough to want to see, and those who don't, are a lost cause for the facts.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...y-cant-barack-obama-speak-about-us-tolerance/

America's liberal elites have been falling over themselves to denounce their country and fellow citizens as anti-Muslim xenophobes who don't understand that it was not all followers of Islam who were responsible for the atrocities of 2001.
Certainly, some Americans opposed to what is now known as the Park51centre (its previous name of Cordoba centre, a reference to a mosque built in Spain on the site of a Christian church to symbolise a Muslim victory, did not quite strike the right public relations note) are motivated by bigotry.
But it was the centre's Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf himself who linked its purpose to its proximity to the Ground Zero site. It is entirely valid to question whether this is the right approach to building interfaith bridges.
Rauf, who once described the US policies as "an accessory to the crime" of 9/11, stated in Bahrain last week that all the "attention is a sign of the success of our efforts" &#8211; an utterance that shows he is stupid, mischievous or worse.
Even if the aim of building the centre there was to encourage religious understanding, that is clearly no longer a possible outcome. So what kind of success was Rauf referring to?
To want to debate such matters, however, is judged as beyond the pale. Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York tried to shut down discussion by saying that opponents of Rauf's initiative "ought to be ashamed of themselves". Presumably, that includes Bangladeshi-born Sharif, who doesn't support the Park51 centre.

Even the Brits are on to the bigotry card...
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Well, the author is only half right. Those who backed prop 8 are bigots.

Those who back Arizona may or may not be bigots, but the mere act of opposing illegal immigration and the chaos it brings with it is not bigoted.

Prop 8 is the majority voting away the rights of a minority. The very definition of bigotry.

Arizona is enforcing law and securing our nation's borders. Not about targeting any one group. NOT bigotry.

The author needs to try again.

This.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Standard hatchet job from Krauthammer, with just a small kernel of truth to make it convincing.

What he doesn't mention is more important than what he does-

Republican governance overheated and crashed the economy, ultimately benefiting only the true Bush constituency. Then they quickly reversed field wrt their deregulated free market rhetoric to employ the Greenspan put, save the big investment houses and those who'd invested in the bunk they created. They bailed out Chrysler and GM with the same money, put the load off onto the taxpayers.

They engaged in the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, cocked up the occupation of Afghanistan, declared a culture war against Islam, the most radical elements of which were nurtured under a previous Repub president, RR.

They cut taxes at the top tremendously, threw a few bones to the middle class as a way to finance wars they didn't need to fight, created huge deficits in the process.

They play on xenophobic sentiment wrt illegal immigrants even as they employ them in huge numbers, refuse to allow measures that will honestly discourage illegal entry.

And they knowingly paralyze the govt with senatorial filibusters over even the most mundane matters and appointments.

Their current battle cry really should be something like this-

"Vote for me- I'm a deceitful self serving Puh-rick, and I'll prove it to you again if you didn't figure it out the last time around!"
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
I don't know, the whole premise of that article seems to rest on the author being somehow empowered to speak for "the people". As in, the people who are opposed to the Park51 community center, the people who live in small towns, the people who voted for prop 8, and so on. Charles Krauthammer speak for them, and apparently, they represent "the nation".

Which is great, except there are plenty of Americans for whom none of those things apply. Not just a tiny group of elitist liberals, but quite often a huge percentage of the population. People like the author LOVE the phrase "7 million Americans who supported prop 8", but they totally ignore the "6.5 million Americans who opposed prop 8". 2/3 of people oppose the Park51 center...which means 1/3 of Americans support it. A minority, to be sure, but how comfortable should people like Krauthammer really be just tossing aside the views of that many Americans as "arrogant elites"? My favorite is the "small towns" crack, as though the 25 million Americans living in cities with 1 million or more people somehow aren't "real" Americans.

This topic comes up often, and every time it does I'm struck by how arrogant and elitist people like Krauthammer manage to sound every time they suggest the only real Americans are the sometimes slim majority of people who agree with them. And I'm also struck by how much it doesn't sound like they think their ideology can stand on its own merits. If you have to reference (and exaggerate) how much support you have every 5 minutes, maybe you need a better argument.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
I'm almost to the point where I want Republicans to win big in November, just to observe the massive amount of crying that will ensue when "the people" realize they've been had. Hell, remember how Scott Brown was the savior? Look how long it took for him to disappoint them.

I always laugh when those who call out others for being bigoted or xenophobic are countered with playing the race card. It's a hilarious way of trying to say that someone in a minority group somehow has a privilege that the majority group does not, while ignoring the fact that members of a majority group enjoy huge privileges in our society. I'm positive those who are oppressed would gladly turn in those "race cards" for actual equality.
 
Last edited:

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,041
136
Charles Krauthammer looks, talks down his nose, and is more arrogant & elitest than those he criticizes.

He could play a great "stuffy" butler.
 
Last edited:

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Resistance, distrust, alarm, and opposition is not enough to govern, regardless of whether it is racism, homophobia, nativism, Islamophobia or not. Republicans have demonstrated time and again that they cannot govern if elected, and they may get another chance to demonstrate it, but it won't change the one constant which is they cannot govern. Obstruct, yes, govern, no.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,501
20,100
146
Charles Krauthammer is an evil propagandist who it's best not to read.

For just one example of countless, one of the major propaganda terms of the last decade was one that let one side use it to marginalize the entire opposition to 'their side', while encouraging its side to parrot the phrase as an alternative to listening to, much less discussing, any facts: "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Krauthammer coined the phrase.

Yes, righties, relax about the thousands of facts showing Bush having a radical agenda bad for the country, you don't have to listen. "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Of course, this is really simply a phrase to manipulate his own side to stay in the ranks, rather than to get informed and recognize their mistakes, just as Al Queda has propaganda to reinforce its twisted world view on its followers.

Krauthammer is a soldier for the bad guys, and all too good at his mission of duping good people into supporting bad.

I'm sure without checking Media Matters has a big file on the facts for those honest enough to want to see, and those who don't, are a lost cause for the facts.

Wow... Just wow...

Especially given your sig.

Just... wow...
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
He's entirely wrong about Prop 8 and that's just going to be downright funny or scary, depending on your POV, to read again in 20 years. The mosque is entirely overblown and while certainly not all bigotry is at the very least total ignorance over a complete no-brainer issue of religious freedom. There's a mosque already within a mile of the WTC anyway, so either way this will be a non-issue in less than a year.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I'm almost to the point where I want Republicans to win big in November, just to observe the massive amount of crying that will ensue when "the people" realize they've been had. Hell, remember how Scott Brown was the savior? Look how long it took for him to disappoint them.

I always laugh when those who call out others for being bigoted or xenophobic are countered with playing the race card. It's a hilarious way of trying to say that someone in a minority group somehow has a privilege that the majority group does not, while ignoring the fact that members of a majority group enjoy huge privileges in our society. I'm positive those who are oppressed would gladly turn in those "race cards" for actual equality.

Bad idea. We did that with Bush. The people who are clueless don't learn a thing when 'their side' destroys the country.

If the economy hadn't had the biggest problem since the Great Depression a couple months before the election, we could well be under McCain and Palin now.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Well, the author is only half right. Those who backed prop 8 are bigots.

Those who back Arizona may or may not be bigots, but the mere act of opposing illegal immigration and the chaos it brings with it is not bigoted.

Prop 8 is the majority voting away the rights of a minority. The very definition of bigotry.

Arizona is enforcing law and securing our nation's borders. Not about targeting any one group. NOT bigotry.

The author needs to try again.
While I don't approve of ascribing homophobia to those who backed Prop 8, it's definitely the majority proscribing the freedom of the minority for its own comfort. Krauthammer is spot-on with his analysis of why the Democrats will lose, but he's missing an equally important point: the public doesn't actually like the Republican Party any more than (perhaps not as much as) the Democrat Party, and will be voting not for the Pubbies, but against the Dems. That kind of negative support can dry up astonishingly quickly.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

A lot of people here need to fess up! A dislike for a vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt does not make one racist. Sorry guys...as much as you would like to believe it.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

A lot of people here need to fess up! A dislike for a vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt does not make one racist. Sorry guys...as much as you would like to believe it.

You're right, it doesn't.

But as much as you'd like to believe otherwise, there are a lot of racists in the US.

There are a whole lot of people who care about things Obama does a lot more than they said anything about them when Bush did them.

One side exaggerates the role of race, the other understates it.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Standard hatchet job from Krauthammer, with just a small kernel of truth to make it convincing.

What he doesn't mention is more important than what he does-

Republican governance overheated and crashed the economy, ultimately benefiting only the true Bush constituency. Then they quickly reversed field wrt their deregulated free market rhetoric to employ the Greenspan put, save the big investment houses and those who'd invested in the bunk they created. They bailed out Chrysler and GM with the same money, put the load off onto the taxpayers.

They engaged in the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, cocked up the occupation of Afghanistan, declared a culture war against Islam, the most radical elements of which were nurtured under a previous Repub president, RR.

They cut taxes at the top tremendously, threw a few bones to the middle class as a way to finance wars they didn't need to fight, created huge deficits in the process.

They play on xenophobic sentiment wrt illegal immigrants even as they employ them in huge numbers, refuse to allow measures that will honestly discourage illegal entry.

And they knowingly paralyze the govt with senatorial filibusters over even the most mundane matters and appointments.

Their current battle cry really should be something like this-

"Vote for me- I'm a deceitful self serving Puh-rick, and I'll prove it to you again if you didn't figure it out the last time around!"

You prove the OP's post. You are bigotted towards a differing political view. If you looked further than one man, you'd see that the economy tanked once Congress was controlled by Democrats.