Friday, April 1, 2011

Liberal Ideological Apartheid

This turned into a long post, but its core importance to the continuing ability to have honest debate is crucial. Despite the length I hope you end up appreciating it and get something from it.

Using the term apartheid to describe the current form of liberal thuggery may seem strange, but it has roots in the actual history of apartheid. And has obvious links to the current Wisconsin experiences detailed later. Thomas W. Hazlett article on Apartheid
"The now-defunct apartheid system of South Africa presented a fascinating instance of interest-group competition for political advantage. In light of the extreme human rights abuses stemming from apartheid, it is remarkable that so little attention has been paid to the economic foundations of that torturous social structure. The conventional view is that apartheid was devised by affluent whites to suppress poor blacks. In fact, the system sprang from class warfare and was largely the creation of white workers struggling against both the black majority and white capitalists. Apartheid was born in the political victory of radical white trade unions over both of their rivals. In short, this cruelly oppressive economic system was socialism with a racist face."

We are certainly not talking about the racial face of apartheid, that has no part in this, but following in this tactical tradition seems to be the tactic "du jour", or is that for this decade?  Many of the far left organizations advocate destructive practices against their ideological opponents rather than honest debate. They do not discuss, they practice character assassination. They make loud protestations about conservative "cruelty" and the need to stop "vitriolic speech", but evidently only as a technique to silence the opposition. The liberal establishment (liberal blogosphere, unions, and even the political party) turns around use the same speech and patterns that they decry.

Liberals always say it is the conservative side that practices thuggery. However the examples brought up are always very isolated and limited examples, not wide spread endemic cases. They claim various untruths about the Tea Party, none of which that I have seen have passed muster for reality, merely someone's stated opinion for political advantage about things that cannot be substantiated. It irritates them enormously. However, there are many documented cases of larger scale liberal organizational thuggery.

One example for the DNCC is Sarah Palin's targeted campaign map. I can't imagine anyone has not heard about the uproar made over the simple map Sarah Palin had on her website. It was certainly not novel, it was virtually exactly the same as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee maps using target symbols on Republicans link. Mark Dayton Gov Minnesota has labeled that classic tool as fitting his definition of vitriolic speech in this histrionic excerpt. Overheated rhetoric like this is only used as tool to silence opposition, and does not really even attempt to stop the psychotic behavior of sick individuals being used as useful idiot's.

We have billionaire George Soros's front groups trying to deny the right for there even to be an opposing voice to the monolithic liberal media link.  Silencing a media organization violates all the principles of freedom, and directly violates the spirit of First Amendment. However, as part of the government, the Obama administration's war on Fox would seem very close to a real violation of that constitutional principle.

Glenn Beck who has many websites and now Media Matters (oh another George Soros front group, is there a pattern here?) hiring a person dedicated to silencing him for no other apparent real and valid reason other than they just don't like him link.  They use the thuggish pattern of targeting him and his sponsors. It is not really evident that Beck is guilty of any more exaggeration or inaccuracies than many others of the liberal realm either. They rail bitterly against his "inaccuracies", but ignore their own. I am sure that this will continue to be a favorite playground for their continued vile protestations about "vitriolic speech", until they either succeed in silencing his voice or give up in failure.

A Pastor get death threats over opposition to Prop 8 Gay Marriage link

Wisconsin Unions double down intimidating local businesses link

Another example of liberal thuggery in Wisconsin  link
From Eyeblast:

According to an eyewitness account:

This video was shot minutes after a union advocate destroyed several petitions at a recall Jim Holperin Rally in Merill, WI. The event was moved to the court house grounds because the private location originally slated to host the event was threatened with arson. It should be noted that police were present when the protestor destroyed these recall petitions, but stated to us that there was nothing they could do about it. The female protestor, who had a young child with her, approached the recall table pretending to be interested in signing the petition, then proceeded to write F— You! She then ripped up other completed petitions before being stopped. Her actions were met with great approval from the rest of the crowd…

Yet another example of liberal thuggery in Wisconsin link
And blogger Ann Althouse -- a Wisconsin law professor who voted for Barack Obama -- received nasty threats for the crime of posting video depicting this thuggish conduct on YouTube: "We will f--- you up," the threateners wrote. This was not the first threat she has received for her blogging.

At the Huffington Post, liberal Lee Stranahan wonders why this kind of thing isn't getting more attention from the traditional media who were tut-tutting over much more minor (and even imaginary) offenses to civility so very recently. "Ignoring the story of these threats is deeply, fundamentally wrong. It's bad, biased journalism that will lead to no possible good outcome and progressives should be leading the charge against it.

"Just before writing this article, I did a Google search and it's stunning to find out that the right-wing media really isn't exaggerating -- proven death threats against politicians are being ignored by the supposedly honest media. If you've never agreed with a single thing that Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly et al have said about anything, you can't in any good conscience say that they don't have a point here. Death threats are wrong and if a story like Wisconsin is national news for days, then so are death threats."

BigGovernment [ link] sums up 20 Days of Left-Wing Thuggery in Wisconsin: When Will Obama, Democrats, and MSM Call for Civility?

These tactics of thuggery and attempts to silence one side of the argument strike at the heart of our republic. Without the ability to publicly enjoin and express differing opinions we as a nation cannot maintain the liberty our constitution has given us. The predicted encroachment of tyranny expressed by both the federalist (those wanting a strong federal government) and the anti-federalists (who wanted strong constraints and limits on the federal government) will become stronger and ultimately we will lose the liberty we have enjoyed. Unless they learn the lessons of freedom, which currently seems unlikely. The loss of liberty for one faction is really the loss of liberty for all.

I would not particularly agree with Noam Chomsky on much else, but even he states "If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all." So one has to ask, is just "freedom for me but not for thee" that all these liberal organizations believe?

As appropriate and true as Chomsky's statement is, I prefer the writings of Ben Franklin link
"'This sacred Privilege is so essential to free Governments, that the Security of Property, and the Freedom of Speech always go together; and in those wretched Countries where a Man cannot call his Tongue his own, he can scarce call any Thing else his own. Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech; a Thing terrible to Publick Traytors. "

Further in Franklin's "Apology for Printers"
Which PBS wrote about in link
Journalist Walter Isaacson believes that Franklin's success with the Pennsylvania Gazette can be attributed in great part to Franklin's desire to examine more than one side of an issue and to publish different points of view. Isaacson states, "Franklin is one of the first American publishers to understand that freedom of the press and tolerance are part of what it is to be a newspaper editor, and what it is to be a printer. And part of the genius of America is that we're open in our discourse." 
 Spirited and honest debate is a cornerstone of our heritage. Scapegoating and practicing apartheid are not.  Perhaps one day we will give up trying to simply silence political opponents, but it certainly doesn't seem likely soon.

No comments:

Post a Comment