All Forums  The LIGHT IN THE FOREST  The Lion's Den ... International & Political Debate  The Hypocrisy of the American Left --- by My Son

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize: 640 x 480 800 x 600 1024 x 768 1280 x 1024 UserName: Password: Format Mode: Basic  Help  Prompt  Format: Videos: Font Andale Mono Arial Arial Black Book Antiqua Century Gothic Comic Sans MS Courier New Georgia Impact Lucida Console Script MT Bold Stencil Tahoma Times New Roman Trebuchet MS Verdana   Size 1 2 3 4 5 6   Color Black Red Yellow Pink Green Orange Purple Blue Beige Brown Teal Navy Maroon LimeGreen Message Icon:                             Message: Smilies [quote][i]Originally posted by richfed[/i] [br][size=3][b][u]The Hypocrisy of the American Left[/b];[/u] by [i]Christopher Federici [/i] [published in The International] As a political movement priding itself on the ideals of tolerance and diversity the new American Left increasingly has launched an offensive against the notion of dissent from its ideological platform. Led by the Democratic Party, this emerging doctrine seemingly contends that tolerance and diversity shall only be applied to those segments of society which conform to its ever shrinking ideological bubble. Ad hominum assaults aimed at discrediting those who would dare challenge the liberal status quo dominate the reactionary tactics of this increasingly hostile political movement. Institutionalization of this emerging strategy has quietly seeped into two of the most sacred bastions of openness and individuality: the political process and the university. It is common knowledge that the privately owned media outlets that dominate the American publics news intake are politically motivated, and in the opinion of this writer overwhelmingly left-leaning. Far less discussed or even realized, however, is the degree to which the public square and the education system have been hijacked by this dangerous suppression of free thought. With the election of President Obama and his team of behavioral advisers these efforts will undoubtedly be exponentially pursued. The basic strategy of the Obama team has been, even prior to his electoral victory, one of basic peer-pressure. The goal: induce sought after social or political goals based on the age-old concept of every one else is doing it. With an increasingly fickle and easily manipulated American public at their disposal the Obama team will make short work of any contentious opposition by characterizing them as a minute minority. The constant barrage of reports during his campaign on the record number of voters the democratic ticket would be bringing in was not simply a reflection of reality. It was a well-planned initiative to achieve just that effect. The more the public was hounded by reports that record numbers of voters would be visiting the polls on behalf of President Obama the more this phenomenon actually occurred as Americans rushed to join their fellow citizens in this landmark election. This strategy will now be applied to any number of Obama initiatives aimed at eliciting a precise, well studied response from the American public. Prior to the recent election, similar assaults on the prevalent conservative base of American populace has taken hold in public debate and in a supposedly free and unfettered educational system marketed as one of openness and diversity. The American university bridles the abilities of conservative professors from wielding any influence over their students, while essentially giving free reign to those who would proliferate the liberal agenda. One major area in which this suppressive tyranny is played out time and time again is through pursuit of university tenures. The university department heads can, and often do, simply adjust the requirements of tenure on a whim to prevent any candidate who may be approaching the required threshold from attaining that position. In this sense associate professors come and go until a suitable and ideologically loyal instructor arrives and is subsequently fast-tracked through the normally rigorous tenure process. Witnessed from the students perspective this has two seriously detrimental effects. The first being the obvious suppression of an entire segment of political ideology both in the instruction and in acceptable student conduct. With few professors ever remaining who do not fit the liberal mold, students are not exposed to a view point that nearly half of Americans subscribe to; furthermore the students who do hold this ideology in esteem have little guidance or support from their instructors and as such their ability to express their own perspectives is viciously suppressed. A second, and possibly more troubling effect, is the value this conduct is instilling in the American college student, one that teaches conformity and suggests that there is only one acceptable value system. What consequences will this have for a nation founded on the ideals of liberty and freedom of ideas? Where would the western world be without the values of debate and reasoned decisions? I leave the answer to these questions to those who bear witness to the future. Examining an equally important and supposedly free arena, the public forum, we see an analogous trend. As the controversial issues of the day are discussed, the American left has employed ad hominum attacks against those who challenge its position. A prime example of an issue being exploited by the American left for its own political gain is gay marriage. The typical and quite patently elementary response to those who are opposed is one of character assault. Those brave enough to openly admit their opposition to state sanctioning of same-sex marriage are immediately ostracized as intolerant bigots either filled with personal hatred towards homosexuals or latent suppressed homosexual tendencies of their own who lash out at the gay community to conceal their own emotions. Both of these childish, yet prevalent responses fail to recognize any semblance of a rational principled argument based on the natural order of the world, moral principles, religious convictions or traditional institutions of marriage and family. These concepts are written off as antiquated superstitions in a nation moving ever farther from its religious and moral roots. It is entirely acceptable to be a proponent of gay marriage, but to engage in character assassination of anyone opposed to such a notion is the epitome of contradictions coming from those who are preaching the tolerance of others. A similar campaign was waged against the opposition to then Sen. Obamas presidential bid. The onslaught of race induced fanatical assaults on McCain supporters was staggering. The Obama team had its base so thoroughly convinced that all of America was behind him that any opposition to this was immediately seen as some fringe movement likely motivated by racist inhibitions. The truth is that there are overwhelming ideological grounds upon which any conservative would wholeheartedly oppose President Obama, voted the most liberal Senator in America in 2007 by the National Journal. The clear message enunciated by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is essentially that tolerance will be extended only to those ideals which conform to its ideological base. Diversity, likewise, shall refer not to true myriad representation in all facets of society, but instead implies that particular segments shall be given a more than proportionate voice. The end result is that a strong majority of Americans have been marginalized and alienated by an elitist faction determined to undermine the very fabric of American society. Ideals such as perseverance and self-determination, strong moral fortitude, and expression of ones religious convictions are all but extinct in the secularized big government milieu of 21st Century America. [/size=3] [/quote]    Upload an Image File From Your PC For Insertion in Your Post    -  HTML is OFF | Forum Code is ON   Check here to include your profile signature. Check here to subscribe to this topic.