Correspondent of the Day: Is the Pot Calling Out the Kettle?
Is the Pot Calling Out the Kettle?
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Have some liberals been endowed with clairvoyant powers? A vocal minority seems to possess a special talent for looking inside the hearts and minds of those who disagree with President Barack Obama's policies. Just ask the omniscient Janeane Garofalo: "It's racism, straight up." No amount of explication will persuade otherwise, because some liberals just . . . just know that conservatives are really motivated by hate.
Or could this form of argument merely be a cynical, dishonest substitute for rational debate? Those who lack the integrity to argue substance will nonetheless be able to achieve the intense emotional gratification of victory, but at an infantile level, by making deliberately false accusations against people who've committed the crime of differing with them politically. No doubt there are many who consciously choose this low road, but there are also many who play the race card with such shameless certainty it begs for a more nuanced explanation. For those true believers, I submit that this and all name-calling tactics are a function of psychological projection -- denial of their own attitudes by ascribing them to others.
It's no coincidence that so many left-wing scolds incessantly advertise their tolerance. It's called compensation. It's long past time that someone questioned the motives of those who persistently question the motives of others. The next time a column or letter accuses conservatives of racism, fascism, homophobia, or sexism merely for holding different opinions, know that the author is either playing a cynical and dishonest game or battling his inner demons.
Rick Provost.
Midlothian.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
R-Lewis Carroll would be proud.
Contradiction of diversity in democracy: If somebody intones their motives from “The Turner Diaries”, how should a tolerant democracy interpret that other than a front to same substantive democracy? To be apart from that, even by degrees, is disconcerting.
But I’m inclined to say that race is only indirectly relevant to the right as left, this is understood as visible practice, but as for Straussian ethics it’s also, and unfortunately, decidedly useful as the justification of ends found and favored in the realist’s idealism. There is a base denominator of agitation that the respectable right finds itself coupled with, again that is unfortunate, but apparent, and should you associate in broad circles with filth, you might appear dirty.
Or the narrative of multi-cultural oppression is too appealing to separate from and angry victimization is somehow emotionally comforting to a few or a many.
Great job Mr.Provost!
The idea of compensation and transference is least understood by those who most practice it.
It also gets all tangled up with the drones who merely mynah bird the party line.
It is also always the last line of defense when a “progressive” is on the losing end of the debate.
Then you get the reflexitive “no, I am not a racist” and the debate changes direction.
Mr. Provost is so right, it would never occur to someone like Janeane Garofalo that her statement on racism made her sound like a closed minded deluded mule.
I hold decidedly Libertarian views in a family of raging progressive New York Academics. I mention this only to make the point that I know how at least part of the system works.
This large group of family and friends speak only to the choir. They read the same newspapers and magazines, The New York Times, the new Yorker etc.
They watch PBS and MSNBC and listen to NPR. They adore Michael Moore and admire Che. You get the picture.
My conservative friends on the other hand are much more likely to go into a rage about the liberal views in the media. But at least they will tune in.
My Libertarian leaning friends are usually open to any and all options.
Sorry about the rant.
But i think that Jimmy Carter could be the poster boy for all the liberal guilt and angst. He stepped outside the choir this time and hit a really sour note.
Mr. Provost, I don’t think one has to resort to psychological factors to explain the name-calling for many of the name-callers. The orchestration of their rhetoric is manifest and calculated for effect. Of course, the ones creating the rhetoric are probably inspired in the manner you describe, but I think most of the ‘namers’ don’t have the imagination to come up with what they are saying on their own. Heck, if they think socialism is a viable economic model how imaginative can they be?
Great job Rick! And for those of you who were “poo-pooing” the notion that there’s Obamatons doing indoctrination work in the public schools, have a look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zrsl8o4ZPo
Yes, there’s some people who want everyone to just shut up if they aren’t chanting his name Barack Hussein Obama MM MMM MM.
Despite their claims to the contrary, liberals can be extremely creepy.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement