"Hate," as the near ubiquitous bumper sticker says, "is not a family value."
The left wants to the world to believe that the "hate" is all on the right. That their preferred method of operation—some might call it "community organizing"—is to stand in a circle, bang on a drum, and sing "Kumbayah" while spreading peace, good fellowship, and brotherly love.
They say that free speech and freedom of thought are paramount and that everyone is to be treated with love and respect—unless you happen to be George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Gen. David Petraeus, Ronald Reagan, Andrew Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Dan Quayle, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Joe Bob Briggs, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Janine Turner, Charlton Heston, Patricia Heaton, Charles Koch, David Koch, Scott Walker, John Kasich, Robert Bork, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Horace Cooper, Charles Murray, Charles Krauthammer, Sarah Palin, or any one of the hundreds of public conservatives on the informal and ever-changing list of those it is okay to hate for their views and opinions.
For liberal Democrats educated in the Saul Alinsky tradition, anyone not explicitly with you is against you—and therefore a fair subject for ridicule, aspersions, slander, and worse. Sure, there are those on the right who are snarky, unfunny, overly serious, rude, and generally unkind but few of them are able to deliver comments with the same amount of venom that comes from even the most average of liberal politicians and commentators. And it's not just limited to them.
Remember how the labor unions like the Service Employees International Union turned out in force just a couple of years ago to try and keep the Tea Party out of congressional town hall meetings on healthcare? And how they disrupted the legitimate business of the legislatures in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Indiana when the new GOP majorities started to take up legislation they didn't like? Even going so far as to help legislators friendly to their cause leave the state, grinding the legislative process to a halt when occupying public spaces and engaging in a campaign of prolonged intimidation.
These kinds of things don't get enough attention; when they do, the advocates of hate and proponents of disruption are treated like heroes rather than for what they are, thugs who should be ashamed of themselves.
In Delsea,N.J., for example, the local teachers' union has been in a fight with the school board over its pay increases for much of the last two years. According to NJ.com, the union decided to make a Valentine's Day gift to the school board president of a protest in front of his home. He wasn't there but a few people were, "including his daughter whose teachers were among those protesting."
Union President Christine Onorato called the action "a simple expression of our democratic right to express out discontent of not having a contract." Unfortunately, it's a little more than that. As one blogger who follows the story put it, "This teacher's union thug finds targeting individuals at their personal residence a legitimate tool in the union arsenal—even if inside the home are students of the very teachers protesting outside."
The liberals are especially good at practicing the "politics of the personal" when their interests are threatened. They know no bounds and they do not shy away from controversy because they have come to believe that might in fact does make right. Whether conservatives choose to begin to respond in kind or not, they must understand the rules under which politics in America is today conducted. To fail to do so would be fatal to the two party system.