Thursday, March 8, 2012

Tit for tat?

The ongoing imbroglio concerning Rush Limbaugh's remarks last week have created yet another side issue. And it is a side issue which deflects from his overall modus operandi, which created the problem in the first place.

I've noticed that some conservatives, while properly disavowing his reference to a Georgetown University law student seeking health insurance for birth control medication as a "slut" and "prostitute," have in turn noticed that liberal commentators have made similar remarks toward conservatives. In one instance Bill Maher supposedly referred to former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin with a word I will not use here, and because I have a lot of left-wing activist friends on Facebook I see the kind of language that they use -- and certainly don't condone it.

There's a difference, however: When liberals slam conservatives, it's always based on what conservatives say and do, not what they believe. A distinction without a difference? I don't think so. Every single liberal broadside against a conservative I've ever seen or heard, without exception, is in response to either an arrogant pronouncement or a punitive policy that says to the rest of the world, "Screw you." That kind of attitude cannot but create an atmosphere of animosity, and since 2004 the left has decided to fight fire with fire.

More to the point, I see a lack of self-awareness on the part of the right on just how it regularly insults people not of its party, as though if you question it on anything its reaction is "Yo' Mama!" or an equivalent taunt. In my experience it accepts no criticism, even constructive, and considers any challenge as a personal attack. (One example: Former president George W. Bush referring to "the politics of personal destruction" when someone questioned his policies.) You wonder if it's really secure in what it believes if it has to eliminate or browbeat any opposition.

I don't listen to talk radio or watch cable news at all, largely due to time constraints but also because I don't want to participate in the sludgefest. However, it's not enough to call for "civility" -- those who create an atmosphere of divisiveness in the first place must be identified, confronted and repudiated. Immediately.

5 comments:

asutton said...

Hillary Clinton coined the phrase "Politics of personal destruction" shortly after using politics of personal destruction to oust Billy Dale from the White House Travel Office and destroyed his life. All they had to do was fire him and say they wanted their own people in the office, instead they levelled accusations of wrongdoing and Dale used his life savings to defend himself.
So don't accuse Bush of using the phrase cynically when Hillary use was the ultimate in cynicism.

BlueDeacon said...

That, Andrew, WAS the politics of personal destruction -- a common tactic against the Clintons that few argue today. When she said that Bill was a victim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy," she was actually being kind, and the details came out piece-by-piece over the next few months.

Jake Hunt said...

I'm concerned that you profess to be committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and do not out right condemn Bill Maher AND Rush forusing that type of language. There really is no justifiable reason for either to do that and both fly in the face of Jesus and He would have conducted himself. I read the post 4 days ago and waited to see if you would come to the Maher incident on your on. You did, and I'm disappointed. Both wrong, both deserved condemnation for their actions, you condemn one and justify the other. Not to mention the POTUS himself is doing the same thing.

I suppose we'll end up disagreeing on this, but you should really reconsider justifying anything of this nature as destructive and wrong.

BlueDeacon said...

Jake -- If you read it carefully, I did. However, conservatives note a false equivalency between what Limbaugh said and what others did; in addition to calling Sharon Fluke names, he ignored the actual testimony that she gave in that hearing, getting the facts wrong in the first place, and that's not acceptable. Moreover, he never truly apologized for saying what he did, saying that he used a "poor choice of words" and that he brought himself down to "the level of the left."

Meanwhile, Ed Shultz was actually suspended for a week due to a derogatory remark, and Bill Maher (now on HBO) cannot be "censored" because he's not being broadcast. (He did lose his show "Politically Incorrect" because of a statement he made about 9/11.) Besides, the folks they skewered -- and I made this very clear -- were liberal-hating bombthrowers in their own right, while Limbaugh attacked someone who until that day was a private citizen.

Mark said...

Sandra Fluke is an activist for Reproductive Justice ( Puree of Baby, not, contraceprion). She was not picked for being some virgin who lost her way and now needs conraception while in a 12 step program. That being said, Hogs in both parties have no conscience about the words that come out their mouths , especially when they are paid millions to support their faction. There are heathen Deist Cosveravatives and Liberals. Their are Christian Conservatives and liberals. Either way, the Non-Christians who woo us to their factional division want us to believe they are us they are not. They are wolves in Blue and Red clothing. I received more responses on "POT" Robertsons endosement of WEED, than any moral issue in the 3 months of news comments. America NEEDS prayer; the symptoms of our future are not pleasant...Mark David Madden