Republicans are congenitally
mean. Conservatives are downright hateful. Liberals, on the other hand, are filled with
love and compassion. This was the
central the theme of the Democratic National Convention. Nearly every other speech was dedicated to
telling us that love is all we really need.
Sure, the Beatles told us
the same thing—but is it actually true?
If we can convince the ISIS gunmen that we genuinely care about them,
will they lay down their arms? If Franklin
Roosevelt and Winston Churchill had given Adolf Hitler a few more hugs, would
he have refrained from invading Poland?
If these examples seem
silly, make no mistake about it, many liberals would free criminals from prison
on the grounds that this would make them better citizens. They would also disarm the police in the
belief that inner city thugs are merely reacting to official violence.
After all, didn’t the mayor
of Baltimore tell the police to stand down as rioters ravaged her city? And didn’t the Department of Justice condemn
the Ferguson police for bringing riot gear to a riot? And wasn’t that a former Miss Alabama who
said she felt compassion for a man who killed five officers in cold blood?
Faux niceness is evidently
the stock and trade of liberals. Thus, they
insist that they are tolerant to the core, whereas their opponents are
discriminatory wretches. Only
progressives really care about others.
Only they want to make the world a better place.
And yet all of this is
belied by their behavior. No sooner do progressives
tell us that we should love everyone than they turn around and call conservatives
awful names. Is this love? Is it tolerance? As importantly, is it non-judgmental?
But you say that they do
with a smile on their faces and the milk of human kindness flowing from their
bosoms. What then was that business
about radicals burning the American flag outside the convention? And why was a good liberal like Geraldo
Rivera spit upon by a demonstrator?
The truth is that liberals
are world-class haters. At one point or
another, they have vented their spleens at men, Christians, the rich, whites,
and straights. Although they routinely
disguise this venom under protestations of magnanimity, it is
ever-present. Theirs, they assume, is
righteous indignation. Nonetheless it is
deep and unforgiving. Whatever it is, it
is anything but loving toward its targets.
When Hillary Clinton was delivering
her diatribe during the convention, there was fury in her eyes. If you doubt me, go back and look at recordings
of her speech. While she claims to be
full of sweetness and light, she also says she is a fighter and those eyes
confirmed it.
Hillary and her allies may
be justified in their hostility toward some of their opponents, but to call
this love is a stretch. Nor is their
anger antiseptic because it is moral.
Rage has a way of getting out of hand.
It does not just ask cops to be nice; it threatens to kill them.
Neither is hate
moderate. When it is at full bore, it
prevents people from thinking clearly.
Haters are so determined to destroy their foes that they do not consider
whether their own policies have the intended effect. Clearly, they want to win more than do good.
The progressive agenda has
been implemented many times in many places.
Nowhere, however, has it lived up to expectations. Why don’t liberals realize this? In part, it is because they are too busy
blaming their adversaries. They assume
that if they could annihilate these folks, truth and justice would
automatically prevail.
As for love, if they
genuinely loved children, wouldn’t they promote stronger marriages and
families? Likewise, if they genuinely
loved the poor, wouldn’t they help these folks become more responsible?
It is easy to say that one
is loving. It is quite another to
demonstrate it. Liberals consequently
make a habit of self-congratulatory nonsense.
Although they routinely maintain we should love everyone, they might
consider being a little nicer themselves.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment