I can see the validity of that view, but some of the cases still need to be brought to the attention of as many post-Americans as possible.
Take this case from the University of Georgia:
University of Georgia professor issued an apology to those he had “offended” when he congratulated an old friend on becoming the state’s Republican candidate for governor.Charles Davis, dean of the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication at UGA, sent the offending tweet shortly after Brian Kemp won the GOP primary Tuesday night, noting that he had been friends with Kemp since childhood and considers him a “nice guy.”
“I went to high school with GOP guv candidate @BrianKempGA. We played YMCA ball from childhood. Politics be damned. He is a nice guy, always was. Kind to a fault,” Davis tweeted. “He’s a friend, always has been, and will be when we’re old(er) and grey(er). That’s how all this should work, people.”
Rather than embracing Davis’ call for civility, liberals quickly denounced him for having something nice to say about a Republican, declaring that Kemp is a “racist” who “spews bigoted and dangerous rhetoric,” and insinuating that Davis must therefore be no different.
“You’re a straight white man. Of course he was nice and kind to you. Racists are generally nice to their own kind,” one user replied. “Why don’t you say what you really mean. Politics be damned. You’d never vote for a black woman and would much rather vote for the white racist.”
“It’s the definition of privilege,” another user remarked caustically. “~the dean~ has the luxury of damning politics because no politician is threatening his rights, safety, or survival; he is willing to empower those who would threaten the same of others on account of the candidate being ‘nice’ to him personally.”Or this case from the University of Virginia:
Two historians have quit their roles at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, a think tank focused on presidential history and public policy. They are protesting the one-year fellowship the institution has granted to Marc Short, a former legislative-affairs director for President Trump.Good riddance. The think tank’s director has resolutely defended his decision to hire Short, and should continue to do so.To call Short’s critics “hypersensitive” is to surrender to the false notion that there is anything at all here to be sensitive about. Short is not being criticized for anything he actually did, whether in his private capacity or as a member of the Trump administration. Rather, he is being attacked merely for being in the administration — especially during the aftermath of the violence in Charlottesville, when the president failed to condemn white supremacists promptly.
As for his own opinion about what transpired in Charlottesville, Short has embraced the Miller Center’s strong statement on the matter; regarding the White House’s reaction, he told Politico that the administration “could have done a better job expressing sympathy for the victims and outrage at those who perpetrated this evil.” That, of course, does not satisfy the Resistance.Academics and alumni have rushed to sign an online petition urging the university to cancel Short’s fellowship — a petition that says the school should not hire “high-level members of an administration that has directly harmed our community and to this day attacks the institutions vital to a free society.” The resigning professors, meanwhile, fault Short for “associating himself with an administration that shows no respect for truth” and thereby “contribut[ing] to the erosion of civil discourse and democratic norms that are essential to democratic governance and that are central to the mission of the Miller Center.”
The professors also point to Short’s prior positions with the Koch Brothers Freedom Partners fund and the Senate campaign of Oliver North, as well as his new position with a conservative lobbying firm, but this is a distraction: The Miller Center routinely hires “practitioners” who have pursued partisan goals, and currently hosts veterans of assorted presidential administrations, Capitol Hill offices, advocacy groups, and ideologically oriented think tanks. Short’s decades of experience in politics and policy are an asset, not a liability.
The core message is clear: Anyone who has served in the Trump administration, in any role, is not welcome to a fellowship at the Miller Center. Never mind the perspective that a member of the Trump White House could bring to an institution that both seeks to understand the presidency and aims to provide competing viewpoints. And never mind that Short doesn’t face a single accusation rooted in his own behavior.So far, the Miller Center is standing firm.
I realize that the Trump phenomenon has injected a new element into the Left-Right dichotomy that has characterized American politics, intellectual life and culture for at least a hundred years, but let us not forget that there is still very much a Left, and that it hates conservatism. Hates it. Wants to see it stamped out, permanently silenced.
The Left shares with that portion of the Right that has not succumbed to the Trump phenomenon a disgust with Trump's obnoxiousness, but leftists are so ignorant about what conservatism actually is that they are conflating him and his populism with conservatism. Put another way, they'd still hate an actually conservative president, it's just that Trump's repulsiveness ratchets up their frenzy level a bit past what it would be with, say, a President Cruz, Walker, Rubio or Fiorina.
It's not hyperbolic to call this a war, and it's being waged upon us by the Left.
And if there's anything actual conservatives do have in common with Trumpists, it's an insistence that the Left will not silence us or shove us off to the margins.
That's why instances such as these still need to be pointed out, at the risk of it becoming trite to do so.
The Left has to be defeated. That's still true, even in this time of complications.
It appears that the term “hate” is slowly replacing “vomit” as your favorite term du jour but allow me to offer a tip.
ReplyDeleteIn nearly four decades of political campaign involvement at every level, I have been involved in the development of literally dozens of attacks aimed at discrediting my candidate’s opponent. There is one important rule well-known by professional political communicators. It is (usually) prohibitively expensive to create a negative concept against an opponent out of whole cloth. The more effective and efficient approach is to reinforce those impressions already held in the mind of the public.
The notion that “the Left”, so often dismissed right in this space as microaggression-sensitive tree-hugging do-gooder snowflakes, is somehow seething with near-violent hatred is so “brand inconsistent” that it just can’t sell by you dropping it here and there.
However, I’ve noticed a source also picking up the pace of attempting to label his opponents as purveyors of “hate” – Donald Trump.
Well said Rick!
ReplyDeleteSo you're cool with the two instances of actions against conservatives discussed in this post?
ReplyDeleteHow about these developments?
It is a truth universally acknowledged that haters gonna hate. Ironically, self-appointed campaigners against hate are often especially hateful, as several recent articles in the Washington Post illustrate.
First, there was “Why can’t we hate men?” by professor Suzanna Walters. Then there was “I no longer have hope in white America” by the Post’s own Karen Attiah. Finally, there was “Pride Month is over. Welcome to LGBTQ Wrath Month” by university instructor Anthony Oliveira.
Source: http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/01/identity-politics-fuel-hate-instead-fighting/
And yes, leftists are microaggression-sensitive tree-hugging do-gooder snowflakes. Assuming that role is their weapon against proponents of common sense and conventional morality.
I'll be interested in what you have to say about the next post, about Sarah Jeong.
I am absolutely cool with the first instance, in particular, because I happen to know the facts behind the bullshit.
ReplyDeleteCharles Davis was neither pressured by the university to remove the tweet in question, nor has he abandoned his friendship for Kemp. He has, however, on his own and quite correctly recognized that he should not post what was in fact a political endorsement on a social media account sponsored by and associated with his position with the university.
One would never even suspect the true circumstances behind the Davis story because the author of the article you cited does not recognize the importance of truth or integrity in conveying information to others.
Which brings us to Marc Short, who also has nothing in his rather lackluster career that suggests he cares a whole lot about truth or integrity, either. Apparently that mattered to a couple of professional historians. Personally, I would not have gone beyond ridiculing the irony of the appointment...but that's me.
Horseshit. He congratulated him. He didn't endorse him. And you talk as if whether the university pressured him or not is the whole matter. Do you have nothing to say about the nature of the two tweets I include in the post - rotten through and through with identity politics and talk of "privilege"?
ReplyDeleteAnd your drive-by generalization about Marc Short, with no substantiation for the claim that he doesn't care about truth or integrity, lacks credibility from the get-go.
Be warned, then. Especially if you have any email or social media accounts associated with IUPUI. Davis recognized what apparently escapes you. First, exactly what an endorsement means, which his tweet cannot be interpreted as meaning anything else (especially a meaning not actually included). Second, it is policy of the University of Georgia (and IUPUI) not to endorse partisan political candidates and staff that use university assets for political purposes are violating that policy and subject to disciplinary action...your expletive notwithstanding.
ReplyDelete