Intolerance is Back Again
I was recently having dinner with 3 others in New York City, in the heart of the West Village, when the table next to us leaned over and proclaimed that we were the problem with America. My friends and I were all shocked and perplexed. Did we know these people? Had they confused us with someone they knew? After calling us "bigots" and "ignorant" we realized they had been eaves-dropping on our political discussion during a quiet Saturday night dinner. Our opinions about Sarah Palin and women in politics were too much for them to sit and enjoy their own dinner. Instead, they chose to insert themselves into the conversation next to them and loudly start an argument. The irony was not lost on me: a man in the West Village, wearing an ascot around his neck, was lecturing us about being "bigots who want to control the way other people chose to live their lives" -- after he interrupted our dinner to shout us down! I tried to explain to him that he has become what he hates -- an intolerant and angry voter.
In the 1990's, the liberals were proud to display a popular bumper sticker: "Hate is Not a Family Value"? The slogan was a backlash to the Religious Right's (RR) attempt to promote family values in politics. The liberals found the RR's social campaign and their subsequent intolerant actions to be too hypocritical to not push back. Correctly, the liberals mounted a campaign to show the hypocrisy of promoting love and family values well at the same time angrily denouncing some people. Hypocrisy never wins elections, and the liberal backlash succeeded. Social conservatives and their promotion of family values as the primary issue in the 1992 and 1996 Congressional and Presidential campaigns naively believed that Americans would vote for the party that promoted social policy over any other policy. The disastrous Houston Republican Convention of 1992 was highlighted by Pat Buchanan's speech promoting social policy as the mantra of the election. The RR didn't learn any lessons that year when Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush and a plethora of Democratic senators swept into Washington, and they ultimately tried to push the same social policy messages into the 1996 campaigns as well. And although the Republican reformers and fiscal budget hawks in Congress wrestled control of the Republican message from the RR in 1994 (and ultimately became the Majority in Congress for the first time in 40 years), the Religious Right came roaring back in 1996 with more social policy demands. The 1996 elections for Republicans focused mainly on Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky's affair and only proved that the RR's message of social policy as government policy would be rejected by the American people -- the RR had once again lost the General election.
In 2000, George W. Bush seemed to learn the lessons of the intolerant right's failures by launching his Presidential bid with vows of "compassionate conservatism" and commitments to work with both sides of the partisan aisle. For many of us, we thought the lessons had been learned that intolerance is not only un-American but it doesn't win elections either. Although the current Bush Presidency's plans for the country were drastically changed on 9/11/01, many Republicans wonder if the compassionate conservative campaign pledge of 2000 would have ushered in a greater sense of unity in Washington, less divisive political theatre and a final defeat for intolerant politics. Unfortunately, we may never know the answer.
In 2008, the Republicans had a plethora of candidates to chose from in the primary. The candidate chosen by the GOP, John McCain, wasn't the choice of social conservatives, and yet he is the nominee. For many in the Republican party, the choice of McCain is another defeat for intolerant politics led by the Religious Right.
But while the war over intolerance and narrow-mindedness is waging in Republican circles, it is alive and well on the Left. The angry Left has taken over the Democratic Party and is in full control of the message. The actions by the self-described "all accepting" and "diverse" liberals started to creep into politics with John Kerry's campaign in 2004. But in 2008, we are seeing the most angry and intolerant liberals America has ever seen. The liberal elites are having a hard time discussing policy without becoming apoplectic and resorting to name-calling. The height of hypocrisy is to see the angry left advocate for diversity but to completely become enraged when someone isn't seeing the world the way they do. They believe that if you don't agree with them then you are a bigot and "ruining America". Try listening to The View's Joy Behar and you quickly see that she shouts over all other views with cynicism and anger or watch MSNBC to witness the Left's new intolerant message that there is only one way to think.
Living in New York City one would assume you would be surrounded by liberal and accepting people with diverse opinions. This is a city that declares you can be anything you want. This is the heart of American liberalism. But try being a conservative in liberal circles these days and you quickly see that the diverse party isn't so accepting. Try telling the liberal elites that you are a pro-life Democrat and you'll get a lashing about how you don't care about women. Or tell the standard-bearers of tolerance that you are a gay Republican or an environmentalist voting for McCain and the angry name-calling reaches a new level. But why has the angry and intolerant Left taken over the Religious Right as the new intolerant group? For many in the Republican mainstream, we thought we were making progress on getting rid of the narrow-minded from the political scene, but now we find they have popped up on the left. The elite have become completely unwilling to listen to other ideas other than their own. The intolerant angry left has replaced the religious right in 2008. And it makes you wonder if "Intolerance and Anger is the Change We Need"?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
While I wholeheartedly agree that being "angry" does not get anyone very far, there is an important (albeit a subjective) distinction that I think needs to be made between the angry left and the angry right. In most general terms, the liberal line of thinking is "live and let live", while the conservative sure seems to be "live and let die". The idea that if you can't "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" then it's your own fault and we are not here to help you, right to happiness is not a guarantee (thank you , Glenn Beck), seems to be the one supported by the conservatives. As Deepak Chopra brilliantly noted in his recent post on this site, conservatives think that God blesses only the righteous with wordly success, and when taken to the logical extreme, this philosophy means there is no need to help the disadvantaged as it is a futile task to try and fight God's will. Except the example of the "black sheep", or of the prodigal son who is welcomed more by the Father than his ever-obeying sons seems to go entirely unnoticed. The left, being ridiculed for the very "Christian-like" motives the right are so busy preaching about, and then watching, in turn, the rightist government and Republican financiers go completely socialist (and populist) while simultaneously denouncing the left having tried to do the exact same, can't help but get angry.
"The irony was not lost on me: a man in the West Village, wearing an ascot around his neck, "...
Your description of your antagonist suggests a prejudice you may not see in yourself. You seem to imply that you know something about this man based only upon his location and his attire. What are those assumptions?
It is a shame there has been a loss of civility in American life. I see no evidence of any attempt to eliminate angry intolerance from the Republican party. Most of the vein-popping, name-calling shout-fests I've seen seem to occur on FOX news channel. O'Reilly and Hannity can be seen screaming at guests almost nightly. The shout-down has become all to familiar for campaign strategists on television news shows.
"For many in the Republican mainstream, we thought we were making progress on getting rid of the narrow-minded from the political scene.."
Really, based on what? John Mc Cain has enthusiastically embraced this wing of the party including the professionals who have been most skillful at practicing the negative, divisive and destructive political mudslinging that has torn this country apart (and hurt his own family). The former "agents of intolerance" quickly became Mc Cain's new best friends when he calculated what it would take for him to win the Republican nomination.
For years, liberals have been told to be nice, to be tolerant of other's, even as they are are intolerant of us. Well, now I'm pissed off and it feels good to be LOUD about just how pissed off I am.
Just like for centuries women were told to be polite and dainty and to not rock the boat, liberals have been told that we need to be the friendly party. Well, no more! And as for your "ascotted" neighbor (don't worry, your description wasn't lost on us), he is probably just as tired of hiding out and keeping quiet.
I refuse to be tolerant of intolerance. I refuse to be tolerant of people who want to walk all over me and my rights and the rights of others.
I am an angry liberal voter. And, thankfully, there are many, many of us out here.
pumpkin - do you know what "liberal" means? open-minded and tolerant come to mind when thinking of the true meaning of "liberal" so "angry" does not go with either of those definitions...YES you are supposed to be tolerant of other's!!! That is whole freakin point!
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/grenell_sarah_palin_vp/2008/09/05/128020.html
Just in case you missed it.
"Although the current Bush Presidency's plans for the country were drastically changed on 9/11/01, many Republicans wonder if the compassionate conservative campaign pledge of 2000 would have ushered in a greater sense of unity in Washington, less divisive political theatre and a final defeat for intolerant politics. Unfortunately, we may never know the answer."
I have a hard time believing that 9/11 changed Bush's plans. I think it only gave him an opportunity to carry them out. Compassionate Conservatism was always a ruse.
As the saying goes, "If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention."
I can't even identify what point of view invoked your dining neighbors to butt in.
Maybe indeed you were victimized by "angry" comments from a "left" perspective.
However you do nothing to civilize the discourse by resorting to Hannity/Coulter/Lambaugh semantics of an "angry left". Joy B on the view of course has to shout at times to get her point, its the view, fcs, thats what they do. Indeed however on issues of war and misspent treasury and know-nothing policies of our executive in power,
ANYBODY WHO ISNT ANGRY IS AN ACCOMPLICE
I wish things were so simple that life/abortion was the most intense thing we had to discuss.
"They believe that if you don't agree with them then you are a bigot and "ruining America". Try listening to The View's Elisabeth Hasselbeck and you quickly see that she shouts over all other views with cynicism and anger or watch Fox to witness the Right's new intolerant message that there is only one way to think."
are you kidding pennp???? which "the view" are you watching? Elizabeth is the only one who is NOT angry at the world on that show. She is only defending herself against all the angry cast members who think she is stupid or crazy for being republican.
Mr. Grenell, you're describing a civility conservatives have never, ever afforded me. At best, I get called "naive," at worst, everything from a communist to a terrorist. In line at McDonald's, talking to a friend about rainforest protection, a stranger butts in: "Why, you must be one o'them vegan PETA people! Do you kiss snakes too? Huhr huhr..."
Now that you've received the same treatment, you want us to be nice? Tolerant? Respectful? Then HAVE RESPECTABLE OPINIONS.
Base them on facts, not assumptions. Quit acting like there are two sides to the last eight years. Stop pretending that Sarah Palin is anything more than a Trojan Moose for neocon know-nothings. And morality is about the mitigation of suffering, not when life begins.
I'm sick unto death of playing nice with arrogant, stupid ideologues. The last eight years have destroyed any respect I had for your party or its so-called "values." I encounter this breed of stupidity at checkout counters, movie theaters, and yes, restaurants. They wear ignorance as a badge of honor, proclaim its precepts as veritable truth, and say anyone who disagrees is not a true American. There's no middle ground with that INTOLERANT attitude.
http://www.osborneink.com
I like your line, "And morality is about the mitigation of suffering, not when lire begins."
Unfortunately, I must admit the line isn't wholly original. My pistol-packin' leftie friend said it thusly:
http://www.pistolpro.com
Hear! hear! I have come to the same conclusion - that I am not going to tolerate stupidity, cupidity, greed etc couched in terms of political beliefs. Some of these actions are plain intolerable and I will say so when I hear them expressed out loud.
I agree with most of what you have said in your article, why shouldn't we be mad? Look what they have done to us!
BTW, why in Dog's name would anyone watch 'The View'?
I think what you are really saying (perhaps subconsiously?) is that you expect the "left" to be polite and nice and always forgiving -- even when their country is being screwed by criminals.
You seem to imply that if lefties don't always express their outrage and opinions in a "tolerant" way then they are betraying their entire philosophy of life, let alone politics. God forbid they should ever call someone a name! BAD liberal!!
Your basic argument doesn't make sense. Are you saying that the left is full of hypocritical bigots who try to pass themselves off as tolerant saints? If so, point to the evidence. If not, then why write an article on this subject? Is it newsworthy? Where IS the evidence pointing to an epidemic of hypocrisy among lefties?
And look at the contradictions and hypocrisy among righties!: (they are against abortion, but insist their daughter get one...) It goes on and on. That the private behavior of those on the right often contradicts the politics they espouse is common knowledge.
The fact is that contradictions (in regards specifically to poltics matching personal behavior) among lefties PALE in comparison.
Yes, we are ALL riddled with contradictions. We have goals and we don't meet them. We think things we don't want to think and we say things we wish we hadn't. But those on the right very often don't even intend to match up their politics with their personal behavior.
Hey, give us lefties credit for trying!
The cons might call it 'flexibility', but I call it 'situational ethics.' They don't have any limits on how low they can sink and still say, "The s h i t doesn't stink," with the sound of truth and a smile while they try to stuff it down our throats. It's like, 'the flogging will continue until moral improves.' And the cons wonder why we are p i s s e d off. Sometimes you just have to fight fire with fire.
Continued.....
I suppose it's not fair to critique an article written a month ago in this political climate. But it was hardly believable that only the dread East Coast Media elites and their cursed liberal friends would find Palin unqualified. Republican senators and congressmen, staunchly conservative pundits, ordinary people of every stripe and even down home, non elitist populists like myself have found her lacking. Lacking in education, lacking in experience, lacking in honesty. She has lied repeatedly on the campaign trail about her record in Alaska as Mayor and Governor. We have enough lying politicians. Don't need any more. She has done a wonderful job of "energizing" the Republican "base". But do we need a Vice President who has such extreme religious views? What guarantee do we have that she would not impose them on the rest of us poor souls who still believe that in the 1st amendment. No state church. After 8 years of G.W Bush sending dog whistle messages to Evangelicals, subverting such institutions as the US Attorney's office by selecting candidates for ideology and loyalty to the Republican Party I think some "intolerance" is called for. Intolerance for the Republicans hidden agenda's and corruption. Oh and less BS from the chorus would be greatly appreciated.
that is fantastic! i'm going to use a lot of that answer this next month.
lol. use it for what ? :)
Well it probably depends on what your conversation was I suppose. But that's certainly up to you to talk about what you choose. I see that you are one of the many people employed in writing for the right wing echo chamber. And that's fine too. But looking at a couple of your recent articles raises a question.
"As the East Coast media elites and their liberal friends try to dismiss her as unqualified, Palin proved she understands America more than Obama. She is proud of her country even as she tries to improve it. And at the end of the day, she proved that her selection not only energized the base of the Republican Party, but extended a hand to the independents, too."
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/grenell_sarah_palin_vp/2008/09/05/128020.html
Plain was nothing more than a gesture to bow to the extremists on the right..defenders of intolerence and narrow mindedness. Look what it got us...a candidate with absolutely no credentials, at this time, to be a heartbeat away and a complete embarrassment to all Republicans.
Sorry, but I commend the people at the next table for expressing their anger and outrage!
Anyone in this country who ISN"T outraged and angry at what has been shoved in our faces for the past 8 years by Republicans and the weak Democrats who cower before them and coddle them is abrogating their responsibilities as a US citizen.
These are about the most serious and calamitous times this country has ever faced, and frankly, with energy, water, global warming, terror and economic issues boiling over as we speak, it's obvious that Republicans are a lot of the problem. They need to step aside and let the Democrats take over like they did during FDR's tenure and at least try to fix this god damned mess with solutions that help the MAJORITY of the population, not the 1% percent that hoards 90% of the wealth or whatever the obscene statistic is.
Edgy is good!
Spend some time watching the right wing shows like Sean and Bill O and you'll find out why liberals are tired of the name calling and unpatriotic leanings of these "men."
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
