How Hatred Became a Liberal Value
Politics is generational. Consider the thuggery practiced by the Democrats recently in Wisconsin. Force, intimidation, and openly partisan, unprofessional conduct on the part of judges, civil servants, physicians, and policemen became on the part of left-liberals the order of the day, and no one on the left stood up to denounce this conduct. Now, thanks to our President’s admiration for the tactics of Saul Alinsky, others in other states are imitating the deportment of the Wisconsin left-liberals – not only heckling Republican candidates but attempting to storm the platforms on which they speak.
I remember when left-liberals insisted on civility. I remember when they condemned the tactics of intimidation championed by the New Left. I remember when progressives insisted on impartiality on the part of judges, civil servants, policemen, and those who purported to be reporting the news (as opposed to espousing opinion). There were always exceptions to the rule. Dan Rather was playing tricks as early as 1963. But, when caught and exposed, these exceptions took it on the chin. Today they rarely even apologize.
I remember when liberals sported on their automobiles bumper stickers reading, “Hatred is not a Family Value.” Then, back in 2003, in The New Republic, Jonathan Chait wrote an essay explaining why it was legitimate to hate George W. Bush, and the dam burst. Civility is no longer a liberal ideal. And now – as yesterday’s armed attack on the Family Research Council in Washington, the five-hour delay in President Obama’s condemnation of the act as he calculated whether it was in his interest to comment or not, and the mainstream media’s initial reluctance to report on the event, much less highlight the activist LGBT connections of the shooter suggest – left liberals are willing to wink at violence. It may be regrettable, they think, but, like stealing elections, it is all in a good cause – and before figuring out how to respond to an outbreak of violence on the part of their allies, they pause to calculate the political consequences. You will not hear liberals arguing for a crackdown on the use of force by animal-rights activists, environmental activists, union thugs, and the Occupy movement. Instead, you will find in them a desperate hankering to pin on the Tea Party responsibility for conduct the Tea-Partiers abhor and a willingness to engage in race-baiting and talk of class warfare on a stunning scale.
The truth is that it is a short distance from the hatred preached by Jonathan Chait to assassination, and five and six years ago there was a great deal of open, public fantasizing along these lines by left liberals.
-- If you liked this post and want to join the conversation on it - or to check out our Premium Podcasts, Members-only pages, Member Meet-ups, and more - click here to sign up for a One-Month Free Trial Offer. --
- Comment (51)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: How Hatred Became a Liberal Value
In this case, they didn't fail to enforce the existing law-- they enforced the existing law, but the current law is warped.
In my religious/philosophical tradition, we remember that Cesar is a tool in many ways, and work to fix Cesar. Overthrowing/undermining Cesar is for when other options have been cut off, especially when the undermining is a sin in itself. (kinda like we don't have a private war)
EDIT: I think the part of the Bible where Jesus is being taken, and someone cuts off the ear of one of the guys taking him, and Jesus heals the guy and scolds his own defender might be relevant, but I can't form it properly. Help? Basically, the problem is too big for killing individuals.
Edited on August 17, 2012 at 3:43amApr '12
Re: How Hatred Became a Liberal Value
Because killing a person is wrong.
There are cases where killing a person is the only way to fix what is wrong, but "kill a person" can't be your goal; you've got to be working to stop the problem, and the problem has to be big enough to be worth the awful act of ending a life.
Killing someone when it doesn't directly stop them is even harder-- when it's something like an abortionist, they (in theory) only kill when paid and it's legal; contrast to shooting someone that is trying to kill you, or a paid illegal killer.
The THEORY goes that abortionists wouldn't do it if the law was different, and killing one abortionist won't prevent any deaths.
If a guy in China shot the abortionist trying to do an abortion, I'd have much less objection, but that's a pretty dang complex question.
Jul '12
Re: How Hatred Became a Liberal Value
Foxfier: All your points are well taken. As far as law goes, I was referring to God's law. First of all, we are not bound by unjust laws. But God's law does command us not just to refuse to obey but to act sometimes. For example, you must put yourself in jeapordy to save an innocent life. If a government killer was going to murder your neighbor's five-year-old and you could only stop him with lethal force, would you? What's the difference between a five-year-old and an unborn child?
But I would argue that the killing of a killer, as in the case that is cited, falls into the area of moral ambiguity while the killing that is committed by leftists does not. The best defense that they can make is that the evil deed is justified by the ends and they do, in fact, make that case.
But back to Christ and the centurion, I do share your feelings. Ultimately, the world cannot be saved and and an individual's best hope is to imitate and trust in God and if the ship is going to sink, so be it.
Edited on August 17, 2012 at 4:36amFeb '11
Re: How Hatred Became a Liberal Value
J. D. Fitzpatrick
Ed G.
Paul A. Rahe: .....
The truth is that it is a short distance from the hatred preached by Jonathan Chait to assassination, and five and six years ago there was a great deal of open, public fantasizing along these lines by left liberals. · · 24 minutes ago
Let's get a grip everybody. We hate it when the other side politicizes the actions of lunatics so we shouldn't do the same; as the saying goes, "two wrongs don't make a right". There are plenty of legitimate topics on which the left/Obama/the media are deserving of criticism, including hypocrisy, but we should steer clear of this particular accusation. · 5 hours ago
.....
So no, I don't buy your attempted rebuttal. · 1 hour ago
What is it that you're not buying? That this guy was more psychopath than ideologue? That a fairly benign article (it only mentions policy and personality and makes no reference to violence) written by Jonathan Chait in 2003 is unlikely to have played any part whatsoever in this shooting? That two wrongs don't make a right? I'm curious....
May '10
Re: How Hatred Became a Liberal Value
Foxfier
EDIT: I think the part of the Bible where Jesus is being taken, and someone cuts off the ear of one of the guys taking him, and Jesus heals the guy and scolds his own defender might be relevant, but I can't form it properly. ....
I think the point of that scene is submission to His Father's will (accepting crucifixion, in fulfillment of the scriptures), rather than any lesson against violence. If Jesus rejected violence, why were His apostles still carrying swords?
Foxfier
... and killing one abortionist won't prevent any deaths.
Exactly. It is morally acceptable to kill a murderer to prevent the death of his innocent victim. I suspect that abortionist killers make it that far in their reasoning: murderers can be stopped by deadly force. What they fail to realize is that killing the murderer in the case of an abortion saves no life.
May '10
Re: How Hatred Became a Liberal Value
Not true. Recall that David, a man after God's own heart, submitted his very life to Saul, an unjust king. The Bible acknowledges that civil authority is not dependent upon wisdom or virtue (alone). That's my understanding, anyway.
Apr '12
Re: How Hatred Became a Liberal Value
Aaron Miller
Not true. Recall that David, a man after God's own heart, submitted his very life to Saul, an unjust king. The Bible acknowledges that civil authority is not dependent upon wisdom or virtue (alone). That's my understanding, anyway. · 8 minutes ago
From memory: we're bound to resist laws that require us to do unjust things.
We are then bound to take the punishment, if we stay in the culture.
Apr '12
Re: How Hatred Became a Liberal Value
Eric Voegelin:
....
But God's law does command us not just to refuse to obey but to act sometimes. For example, you must put yourself in jeapordy to save an innocent life. If a government killer was going to murder your neighbor's five-year-old and you could only stop him with lethal force, would you?
Not the same; how immediate the threat, how fungible, other options-- all very important.
For example, some folks view capital punishment as morally the same as killing an innocent kid; in general right-wing morality, it's still not OK to kill them, because there are so many options on how to prevent the deaths they would cause.
Re: How Hatred Became a Liberal Value
Ed G.
Keith Preston
Sam is right. Here's the Wiki. To save you time, here's how it was received:
From the Wikipedia: The film won a total of 6 awards including; the International Critics Prize (FIPRESCI) from the 2006 Toronto Film Festival,[22] the International Emmy Award for the TV Movie/Mini-Series category in the (UK), the RTS Television Award in the Digital Channel Programme category from the Royal Television Society, the RTBF TV Prize for Best Picture Award from the Brussels European Film Festival for director Gabriel Range, the Banff Rockie Award from the Banff Television Festival for the film, and one for director Gabriel Range. The film also received a nomination for Best Visual Effects from the British Academy TV Awards in 2007 · 48 minutes ago
Edited 48 minutes ago
OK. Was any of that responsible for a lunatic going in to shoot up this organization? · 12 hours ago
If you think that this does not encourage the use of violence, think again.
Jun '12
Re: How Hatred Became a Liberal Value
Foxfier
Aaron Miller
Not true. Recall that David, a man after God's own heart, submitted his very life to Saul, an unjust king. The Bible acknowledges that civil authority is not dependent upon wisdom or virtue (alone). That's my understanding, anyway. · 8 minutes ago
From memory: we're bound to resist laws that require us to do unjust things.
We are then bound to take the punishment, if we stay in the culture. · 9 hours ago
Jesus actually promised us that we would be hassled for following our faith. Far too many Americans have forgotten that and think that God has promised believers an easy life under governments that will treat us nice.
Aug '12
Re: How Hatred Became a Liberal Value
The heart of hate is ignorance. Liberals seem to seek out ignorance, wallow in contradiction, and embrace their own fears. They will claim to be progressive internationalists, yet they remain silent in the face of denigration of women in the middle east and deadly violence against religious and ethnic minorities worldwide. Undoubtedly the FRC gunman was one of those who believe that gay marriage is the "civil rights issue of our time" and hence justifies violence, but would this claim stand up to the slightest scrutiny? If the worst injustice in our land is that a gay couple has to negotiate a binding domestic partnership agreement and get married in local Episcopal church, instead of some dingy city hall, then I would say we are much better of than any of us are aware.