Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party? Why, racist resentment toward a black president. Disgust and alarm with the federal government’s unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism. Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia. Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia. Now we know why the country has become “ungovernable,” last year’s excuse for the Democrats’ failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes? –IBD
The old saw has it that, “sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” The other old saw has it, “the pen is mightier than the sword.” The truth, of course, is somewhere in the middle, as this habit of calling names tells us. Of course, calling someone a name is as old as human history itself, isn’t it? Even Jesus called people names —for instance, he told the Pharisees they were the sons of their father, Satan, and that they were like whitewashed sepulchers. The Pharisees, for their part, called Jesus Satan as well.
What can we learn about all this name calling? What doesn’t matter is calling someone a name. Calling someone a name is often a simple way to go around long descriptions and get to the heart of the matter; to describe something in a way that people can quickly and easily understand.
What does matter is making certain it is true. Let’s look at the cases above, for instance.
Are people protesting against Mr. Obama because of the color of his skin? Doesn’t it seem a little odd, if this is so, that all the protests are against higher taxes, the socialism of medical care, and other issues? Even calling someone a “Nazi,” isn’t a racist remark; while Nazi’s are racist, the core of the National Socialist belief system are economic and religious. Racism flows naturally from these beliefs, rather than these beliefs flowing from racism. When Jews in Israel are called Nazi’s, and Palestinians called “the new Jews,” even though the Jews were really the victims, and the Arabic leadership of Palestine sided with the real National Socialist party, the charge doesn’t appear to have any real meaning any longer —other than “you’re mean, and I don’t like you.”
Are people protesting against illegal immigration because they are “nativist?” Well, there might be some folks in any crowd who just don’t like Mexicans, but it’s a hard charge to press overall. When the drug cartels are killing immigrants en masse on the US southern border, it’s hard to see how this flow of illegal immigrants is good either for Mexico or the US. It’s not precisely “nativist” or “racist” to oppose the conditions that end in the maltreatment of millions of humans a year. It’s also not unreasonable for the US to demand a nonporous southern border when Mexico demands the same —Mexico caught and returned some 43,000 “illegals” on its southern border last year. It’s much better to find a reasonable solution to the problem, but reasonable solutions are impossible when there’s no way or will to enforce any solution.
Are people who oppose same sex marriage “homophobic?” The term, itself, means someone who is unaccountably afraid of homosexuality. I don’t find many people in this position among those who oppose homosexual marriage. I see people who either object to homosexuality on moral and religious grounds, or people who have reasoned through the slippery slope, and realize that when the state sanctions one form of sexual union just because people are “in love,” there’s no stopping the slide. Traditional marriage was officially sanctioned by the state on economic and “military strength” grounds, rather than religious ones. Sex outside marriage wasn’t seen as bad by many parties in Greece, so long as you had your children to keep the State going along the way. The real redefinition of marriage is to make it all about “falling in love,” or rather state sanctioned emotions. To say so is not to hate, or be afraid of, homosexuals.
And what about those “Islamophobes?” Is it purely fear that would drive people to oppose the spread of an ideology that claims to be not only a religion, but also a social structure and a governmental system? Does the current state of women in the social structure of all Islamic countries, and the rabid dictatorship that rules over almost all them serve to inspire us to accept this ideology? Does the support for terrorism by Islam within the US itself say anything? Isn’t the point of terrorism to make one afraid? Isn’t it a bit odd to claim, then, that those who have been terrorized are, in fact, afraid.
No, every name the left uses to try and make people let down their guards against the incoming gut punch doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. This is not just name calling, it’s also lying.