• Comment (2)

The Left's 'Hate' Hypocrisy

March 5, 2012 RSS Feed Print

"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.

[See the latest political cartoons.]

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.

[See pictures of the protests in Madison, Wisconsin.]

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.

Tags:
Wisconsin,
Democratic Party,
unions,
Republican Party

Reader Comments Read all comments (2)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Seriously, you want me to take this seriously? Let's remember how we got here, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich started the politics of poison when they started branding Dems as idiots, unpatriotic and worse.

Love the argument, the other side does it too. That didn't work for my mom or my dad.

Uncivility is uncivility.

My tea party experience, as I held a sign that said, "I believe in civil discourse,", I got spit on and jeered while a bunch of 2nd amendment right folks, fully armed, surrounded us. Lovely. (Remember when a Black Congressman got spit on by a tea partier?) I'll never go to a tea party rally again. Too dangerous and uncivil.

BTW-the only people I know who know who Saul Alinsky is, is you and Newt Gingrich.

You need to watch FOX if you really want to see some nastiness. Never seen a sitting president so dis-respected. Before you all point fingers, look in the mirror. Conservatives don't ridicule, don't slander, don't intimidate....get real. I'm against it on both sides of the aisle. Uncivility is a bi-partisan issue. Talk about hypocrisy.

bing of AL 6:33PM March 06, 2012

i have a very vivid recollection of a tea partier standing on the neck of a woman he had knocked to the ground.

fred powell of OH 8:27PM March 05, 2012

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement