Pages: 1 2
The Modern Liberal knows that he cannot win debates held in a respectful and open environment. When objective facts are “undesirable” they cannot allow an opportunity for those facts to be heard and considered. For this reason the Democrat has no choice but to attempt to render alternative points-of-view as being so beyond the pale that the mere consideration of those views becomes an act of evil in and of itself. If, for example, the Democrats had presented their case during the Bush Administration as “George Bush is a good and decent man who wants the best for the country and the world but he happens to be wrong on (say) his Social Security policy, this kind of environment would see questions asked that the Democrat knows he cannot answer, questions such as “Where is Bush’s policy wrong?” and “What’s the Democrat’s policy and how is it better?” But, because the Democrat knows his policy isn’t better (because his goal isn’t to respond to objective facts but rather to lie for the benefit of his “social aim”) he cannot allow such an environment to exist. In order to prevent it he must declare that George Bush is eeevil and therefore anyone who would even consider supporting Bush because of his superior policy would be evil himself. The Tea Partiers have to be made to appear racist because if they’re good and decent people with legitimate concerns, the objective facts which the Democrat finds undesirable would enter into play.
For those of you who lament the coarseness of today’s political discourse, try a simple thought experiment. Try to think of a single major issue over the past sixty years (the whole of what I call the Modern Liberal Era) in which the thrust of the Democrats’ argument was a reasoned and respectful affirmation of the benefits of his policy. You can’t name a single one. The entirety of the Democrats’ argument on every issue is “I’m right because I’m morally superior (due to their “social aim”) and if you disagree you’re eeeevil.
Differ with the Democrat on the building of a victory mosque to tower over the remains of thousands of innocent victims at Ground Zero and you’re not just “wrong” you’re an eeevil “Islamophobe.” Hold a different position than the Democrat on the immigration bill in Arizona and you’re not just “misguided” (to be corrected with facts) but you are an eeeevil “racist.” Don’t believe that the government should further fund research into the failed science of embryonic stem cells? You’re an eeeevil Christian trying to impose your superstitions on others. Have concerns about runaway spending? You’re an eeeevil bigot. Recognize the short-comings of a socialist healthcare scheme hammered out in the dark of night and passed only after massive pay-offs and bribes? You’re an eeeevil doctor who chops off children’s feet.
Hatred is the coin of the realm of Democrat Party policies and the means to advance the leftist agenda. It is the goal of those who support the Democrat Party because the truth is undesirable to them because their “social aim” cannot withstand it.
Evan Sayet is a satirist, lecturer and writer. Visit his site at EvanSayet.com.
[Editor's note: Don't miss Evan Sayet's blockbuster hit "Why the Left Hates Sarah Palin." Click Here to read it.]
Editor’s Note: To get the whole story on why the Left is full of hate, read Jamie Glazov’s critically acclaimed and best-selling, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror.
Pages: 1 2