SO...I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS ALL DAY, and I find myself a bit confused as to why the left likes the phrase "anti-gay" so much. What does it really imply? It seems that, in the black and white world of modern liberalism you are either for something or against it. There is no in between and there is no moderation.
For instance, if I recognize that environmentalism can go too far and is often harmful to humanity, or support drilling in ANWAR because every bit of domestic production we can muster is one less barrel of oil we have to buy from OPEC, I am "anti-environment." Come to think of it, if I am not a member of the Democratic Party I am also anti-black, anti-union, anti-woman, anti-peace, anti-children, anti-health care, and anti-animal.
I admit, I often refer to the anti-war crowd, because...well, that is what they are. Against war. Aside from that example however, I can't think of another instance when I thought to refer to a belief in terms of "anti." I don't refer to people who disagree with my position on Social Security as anti-Social Security, because it's just not that simple.
Time and pressure have taken there toll, however, and I'm starting to think that the left could do with a little of it's own medicine.
It might be fun to turn the tables, don't you think? From now on, refer to someone with radical environmental ideas as anti-human. Instead of referring to the pro-gay marriage crowd, as I usually do, simply refer to the anti-marriage crowd. If you are "anti-black," then someone is anti-white. If you are "anti-gay" than someone is anti-straight.
"Anti-gay" is an interesting example given the current situation in Washington State. In the simple world of the left, Jim West is "anti-gay." For being gay personally and "anti-gay" politically at the same time, he has been ridiculed without pause for almost a week. But if I were to turn the tables on a quote used against West yesterday in the brave new context which I have outlined, it would read, "straight liberals seem to suffer from self-loathing."
All of the following quotes, also used against West, can be reversed with some surprising, and dare I say, humorous results. One would be perfectly justified, for instance, saying this to virtually any straight Democrat: "For a politician to be (privately) straight and to be so anti-straight is an abuse of power."
The next time someone brings up the "religious right," substitute it with the word "straight" to get this little gem: "The straight community is going through a lot of persecution now, especially from the Democrats and the anti-Christian left."
I'm not sure how to square the "outing" referred to in this next quote, but substitute it with any politically motivated character assassination. "When a straight individual is in a position of influence and uses that influence to harm other members of the straight community, then outing that person is justified."
Considering the possibilities, it would be of little consequence to arrive at the same conclusion regarding the actions of West's critics that Washington State political science guy Lance LeLoup did in reference to West: "It's a pretty egregious case of hypocrisy."
This logic could be applied in all kinds of circumstances. I'm thinking it might even be an occasion to start visiting the occasional lefty blog, just to have some fun. The more vicious the liberal the better. All the more fodder for my poison pen.
We anti-Democrats should learn a very important from the last few days of watching Washington State leftists trash West, not over suspect charges that he molested boys in the past, but simply for being gay and a Republican. It's not what you are for that matters, it is what you are against.
It might be time to start better articulating what the Democratic Party and it's liberal leadership are against. Just...try not to be so angry about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment