A continuing narrative on these pages has been the grossly asymmetric way that the Right (conservatives, libertarians) and Left (socialists, liberals) treat each other’s expression of ideas and beliefs in the public fora. A corollary to this narrative is how narrow and broad are the spectra of news sources and commentaries that each side consumes. This morning’s papers and news sites are chuck full of examples.
Comparing those of collectivist vs conservetarian bent, I ask -
• What’s the relative frequency of the Left vs Right assembling, organizing, and transporting a legion of hoodlums and rioters to block Right vs Left gatherings – political gatherings (e.g. here and here), conventions, economic conferences, religious meetings, … ? (Here the progressive reader should do his best in the attempt to distinguish between a peaceful demonstration and a disruption requiring the presence of armed police to keep the peace).
• Which political cohort has subverted our educational system to become the outlet for disseminating their ideology and enforcing ‘correct thinking’ about every social issue of significance?
• Which political cohort has commandeered the humanities in the nation’s institutions of higher learning, and in the process created a generation of intellectually vapid students who must be actively and selectively shielded from politically incorrect, insensitive, and sometimes outrageous ideas and modes of thought?
• The congressional members of which party have politicized science and are now actively attacking corporations, think tanks, and scientific agencies to criminalize public skepticism of the causes and portents of global warming?
• People of which political philosophy are actively promoting policies and laws that continually diminish the public’s use of public lands and public waters.
• Which political extreme takes as ground truth that if an individual is only against government funding of some activity, then that is indisputable evidence that they are actively trying to proscribe or censor that activity per se.
• People of which political philosophy are actively promoting objectives and "sustainable development" policies which are stated (here) in the UN’s Agenda 21 (while vehemently denying that they are doing any such thing).
This list could go on and on. But let me end with a little liberal bagatelle from the 30apr16 Union that published a letter from Ms Heidi Hall (here), liberal candidate for Nevada County’s District 1 Supervisor. In there she castigated Mr Stan Meckler for pointing out that the “connections” she originally claimed “between Americans for Good Government and the Tea Party” were fallacious and even pernicious. By her one-sided liberal logic – a version that supports its own brand of ‘reasoning’ in our society – if a certain party or parties who belong to organization A and then go on to found organization B, then it is OrgA that founded OrgB and are necessarily related in some material (i.e. “cynical and secretive”) way. I won’t go into the sources from which she drew her information; expanding that thread here would add some out-of-scope humor.
But here’s the asymmetry, this kind of connections only work for people on the Right. One must never claim that, say, just because George Soros is a Democrat, therefore his founding or funding of a number of leftwing organizations – e.g. Open Society Institute - means that the Democrat Party founded those organizations or has a material relationship with them. And the same can never be said of the Democrat Party’s relationship with the Clinton Foundation just because the Billarys and other executives of the foundation are high-level Democrats.
So coming full circle – they ain’t like us.