One of the hallmarks of conservative rhetorical strategy over the last couple decades has been the use of preemptive hypocrisy. In order to distract attention away from their own behavior, they preemptively accuse their political opponents of displaying their own worst traits. Dennis Prager provides a classic example:
There are individual haters on the right and individual haters on the left. But there is no large-scale hatred in the United States of America today that compares with the hatred of the left for the right. Whereas the right regards the left as wrong – even destructively wrong – the left regards all those on the right as evil. Sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted – these are typical descriptions of the right made by the most respected names on the left.
Imagine for a moment how dishonest or deluded a conservative would have to be to make such an accusation. This bit of mendacity was published in the Worldnetdaily, for crying out loud, where every single day you can read about how liberals are inherently evil, possessed — literally — by demons, and hellbent on destroying America. And that gay people are pedophiles whose desire to be allowed to marry will destroy the family, the church, American civilization and even the human species itself. And that Obama is a Muslim terrorist and a communist deliberately destroying the country to impose a tyranny unlike any the world has ever seen. If you’re looking for large-scale hatred, buy a fucking mirror.
The subject of the article is the spat between Liz and Mary Cheney and he offers his usually terrible arguments in the form of a series of questions:
1. Imagine a person who opposes unwed motherhood (that is, single women voluntarily getting pregnant). Further imagine that this person has an unwed sister who did get pregnant and is now an unwed mother. Do you deny that such a person can love their sister even while opposing unwed motherhood? Or do you believe that if one loves a family member, one must cease holding any conviction that runs against that family member’s behavior? That continuing to hold that conviction means throwing the family member under the bus?
This is a terrible analogy. One can oppose unwed motherhood morally and still support a loved one who is an unwed mother, but that is not what Liz is doing. Liz is proposing that her sister’s marriage be banned, that she have no right to the children they’ve adopted and that her rights be violated. If the hypothetical person opposed unwed motherhood was actively working to undermine the mother’s relationship to her child and deny her equal rights, this would be a good analogy.
2. Do you believe that it is morally acceptable for all gays to stop speaking to their siblings – one of the worst things a person can do to a sibling and to one’s parents – solely because the sibling believes in the man-woman definition of marriage? Or do you only defend Mary Cheney’s decision to cut off relations with her sister because you hate the Cheneys?
But there is nothing to indicate that Mary has cut off relations with Liz. What she did was publicly criticize the political positions that Liz is taking — also in public, by the way — because they do direct harm to her and her family.
When a Jewish or Catholic parent or sibling speaks out against interfaith marriage, should the intermarried member of the family stop speaking to that parent or sibling?
In many cases, yes, especially if they are treating your partner as unworthy of them or a second-class citizen because they are of a different religion. And whose fault would it be? How about the parents for their bigoted beliefs?
This is not only left-wing hatred. It is left-wing totalitarianism: Your good and kind behavior is completely insufficient. You must also speak and think as we do.
Or we will destroy you.
Oh seriously, fuck you. Liz Cheney is being criticized. But the only person in this situation who is actually trying to harm someone else is her.