The Observer is a Student-run, daily print & online newspaper serving Notre Dame & Saint Mary's. Learn more about us.



The left’s intolerant ‘tolerance’

| Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Confusing title?

Tolerance should be a less confusing concept, but some would never know based on the political left’s misuse of the term.

“Homophobe” and “racist” are two terms that have been frequently thrown about in reference to people who have different opinions from those on the left. Believe in the sanctity of traditional heterosexual marriage? The left calls you a homophobe. Don’t agree with President Obama’s crippling policies? The left accuses you of being a racist, and just plain unaccepting of America’s first African-American president.

The Democratic Party and those who fall politically left often brag about being the “accepting” party and being “tolerant” of others, yet they are the ones attacking people with differing views. Senator Tim Scott recently got attacked by the increasingly liberal National Association for the Advancement of Colored People simply for being politically conservative. The group has taken such a far-left stance in recent years that they are apparently only interested in advancing liberal colored people. They went as far as to call Scott a “ventriloquist dummy” for not following liberal agenda. This sad misuse of authority has isolated the once highly benevolent organization and has continued the rift of intolerance among the politically liberal and their sycophants.

Does anyone remember Phil Robertson? The Duck Commander from A&E’s “Duck Dynasty” got attacked by the liberal media for admitting his religious beliefs in support of traditional marriage. The party of “tolerance” did not do much to tolerate Robertson’s religious beliefs. In fact, A&E even fired Mr. Robertson for his religious beliefs, and those in the liberal organization GLAAD vocally called for his termination from the hit TV show. Does that sound like tolerance to you?

The most frightening example of the Democratic Party’s intolerance is that of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s statements regarding conservatives. The far-left governor said during a radio show this past month that extreme conservatives have “no place in New York.” He described these “extreme conservatives” as people who are “right-to-life, pro-assault weapon, anti-gay.” I am not sure what he means by anti-gay, but I would assume that he is referring to those who are defenders of traditional marriage, people who are usually not “anti-gay.” Cuomo, like many of his liberal colleagues, incorrectly makes the jump from supporting traditional marriage to being homophobic and scared of gay people. If Cuomo wants pro-life residents and those that support traditional marriage to leave New York, then whom are the Democrats being tolerant of?

Since the election of Obama and the passing of Obamacare, religious groups have seen less and less tolerance from first White House without a Crèche. Many Catholic organizations, Notre Dame included, have been faced with mandates ordering them to go against their religious beliefs in order to comply with liberal policies. If Obama were the tolerant president that he claims to be, then he would be supportive of religious liberties and tolerant of those liberties and beliefs that build the religions themselves. Not to mention, Obama blamed his race as a factor that leads to his disapproval in an interview with Bill O’Reilly earlier this month. I think it is safe to say that the main factor that leads to his disapproval is his disastrous foreign policy, frivolous spending and wreck of a healthcare law, but who’s to say?

And what is with the war on the wealthy that the Democratic Party has been supporting? If America is the land of opportunity, then those who seize the opportunity and become successful should be held up to emulate, not taxed into the ground and made to look like the enemy. Democratic mayor of New York City, Bill DeBlasio, has seemingly taken numerous stances against the wealthy members of Manhattan’s elite class. He is even accused of purposely not plowing the roads on Manhattan’s upper east side, the city’s wealthiest neighborhood. None of this behavior seems to spew tolerance of the successful.

On a more macro level, Obama’s ignorance to the wishes of Congress set a bad example for the party that he leads. In his State of the Union address, he claimed that he “has a pen and a cell phone,” and was willing to surpass the legislative branch elected by the people in order to accomplish his individual tasks. All of this confusion leads us to beg the question: Who exactly is the Democratic Party actually tolerant of besides gay people who want to be married? Attacking those who have different opinions from you is not only intolerant, but it is the disease plaguing liberal America.

The Republican Party on the other hand does not wave its so-called tolerance in anyone’s face like that rich Notre Dame girl and her Louis bag. On the contrary, we simply support the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution. We defend the first amendment that the Democratic Party squashes. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are vital lifelines to this country’s success and chances for continued prosperity. If you are a beneficiary of prosperity, we won’t discriminate against you either.

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.


About Mark Gianfalla

Contact Mark
  • Football head

    Seriously unclear whether this article is satire. I know that people often write this in the comment section to be sassy, but I really cannot tell.

    • Mike

      No I think he actually is just that crazy

      • Will R

        You’re really that arrogant to pretend that someone you disagree with is crazy? On the other hand, perhaps it is delusion rather than arrogance.

    • Patrick

      He’s the president of the college of republicans. Sadly, this isn’t satire.

      • Will R

        Maybe in a grand show of your tolerance you could create a movement to remove him from his position. Wouldn’t that be a swell day?

    • Will R

      No, it is not satire. The question is, is your post fantasy.

  • Tom

    Certainly many on the left display a disturbing lack of tolerance at times, but this article doesn’t manage to even make a passing attempt at elucidating those concerns.

  • Intolerant Liberal

    If you mean to define someone intolerant as one who refuses to participate in or support the subjugation of human rights, then by all means I am intolerant. I am an intolerant liberal who refuses to allow human rights to be denied to others.

    Mr. Gianfalla, we liberals are not attacking your right to have an opinion, rather we are defending those who you deem unworthy of deserving basic rights. I am in no way denying your rights, but when your beliefs begin to infringe on others’ rights, that is when I become the “intolerant liberal.” Do you believe that the Catholic University’s beliefs are all that matter and that government should bow down to it and allow it to crush others’ rights?

    The war on the wealthy you speak of is an overstatement on your part. Rather than trying to cripple the 1%, government is actually trying to afford everyone the same opportunity at success as those who have been groomed from birth to inherit fortunes. You pity the desolate Manhattan elite who don’t have their streets plowed, but what about those who don’t have a home to sleep in? What about those who don’t even have food to eat? Who’s going to help them?

    As for the “frivolous spending,” you should be more informed before making such broad assumptions. If you did any minimal research you would find out that Obama has actually decrease discretionary spending and is projected to be the lowest level in 50 years by 2023.
    Here I was kind enough to help you out, after all you must care about getting facts straight, right?

    P.S. Maybe the reason the Republican Party doesn’t “wave its so-called tolerance in anyone’s face” is because there is no tolerance to even wave.

    • Will R

      The only honesty in your post is your name: Intolerant Liberal. But on the plus side you demonstrate with shining clarity the exact point of the author’s article. You think only YOUR opinion on any given subject counts, and that anyone who disagrees with you is this or that, does this or that, or deserves this or that. Contrary to your statement, you do indeed advocate the denial of human rights to others, primarily the right of those who think differently than you to do just that. Good luck finding the huge splinter in your eye called intolerance.

    • The Mouse

      As a liberal who is increasingly frustrated with some of the hypocrisy of “tolerance” I’ve experienced over my lifetime with other liberals when I espouse a different opinion that does not match the standard written-in-stone ideology of the Left, I disagree with your perception of conservatives. If anything, as a liberal atheist, I’ve experience more tolerance and non-shouting from conservatives than I ever have with liberals.

      Case in point: I remember in my 20s (I am in my 40s now), being a die-hard anarchist, then socialist, but as a male, always had qualms with abortion (especially when it involves unrestricted access through all nine months), yet the times I’ve tried to start a debate or even share with other liberals that I am not advocating making abortion illegal but I do have some qualms with terminating life; I’ve been violently abused and verbally harassed in public; even having my signs ripped out of my hands (when I marched with other pro-life atheists). I was kind of shocked at the vile, spitting, and screaming at my face and not wanting to at least hear what I had to say. And that continued several times when I’d bring it up around other liberals or feminists (they’d accuse me of being a woman-hater, which saddened me).

      But the same happens to Feminists for Life and even feminists who support sex work and pornography. The shout-downs of those are just as bad. If you are a liberal who agrees on most issues, but does not follow lockstep with main liberal doctrine, you are screwed. I know that there are even conservatives who get accused of being RINO’s if they support gay rights or abortion rights, but from my own experience dealing with them; they are still a heck of a lot more diplomatic, civil and willing to discuss my points of view.

  • Dumfounded

    You really should stick to writing about topics you actually know about, instead of making generalized statements that are unfounded and unsupported. You have a right to religious beliefs? That’s nice. So do I and everyone else. Oh, and so do “gay” people – so, if they would like to get married, then that is their right. You, however, do NOT have the right to tell people how to live their lives. Being that you are the president of a political association, I would think that you would at least make some sort of an attempt at being politically correct. But, given the nature of your views and narrow mind, I suppose that is too high of an expectation. But, if you did want to consider being politically correct, I would suggest not making sweeping statements about any one group, not marginalizing populations of people by stereotyping and diminishing their rights, and oh, “gay” covers just one of many sexual orientations. If you care anything about other people, you would have the decency to at least recognize the individual instead of generalizing into categories of “gay” or undocumented immigrant, which, of course, the negative connotations you add to these are painfully obvious. If I was a Republican at ND, I would be ashamed and embarrassed to have someone like you representing me. You are literally the walking definition of what is wrong with American society today. If I had to take a guess, I would say you grew up in an upper-middle class or upper class household where everything was handed to you. You probably went to some fancy college prep school and somehow got into ND – how, I do not know as I thought they only accepted generally intelligent people. And now, because you do not have to rely on loans, scholarship, or grants, you feel entitled to say anything you would like without having to worry about the consequences of backlash. You most likely have not faced poverty, deportation, not being allowed into your loved one’s hospital room because you’re gay, worry about how you’re going to eat the next day. worry about being able to continue your college education because you don’t have the money, etc. The most you worry about is how Obamacare is going to effect your already way above the average income, instead of worrying about the people who die everyday because their poverty level income won’t pay for cancer treatments. However, I could be totally off base, and if so, I deeply apologize, but, in my experience, anyone who has views similar to yours, most likely has no idea what it is like to live in the real world, where daddy doesn’t come running with his money to fix your problems.
    Grow up dude. Use the brain that your “God” gave you. Use the heart that your “God” gave you. Have some compassion for those who are not born into families that can take care of them. Have some compassion for people born into countries where violence is the norm.
    I will never understand how others can be so ignorant and not understanding of those who are less fortunate than them.

  • C. D. Sawyer

    “The Republican Party on the other hand does not wave its so-called tolerance in anyone’s face like that rich Notre Dame girl and her Louis bag.” hats off to the rich Notre Dame girl waving tolerance in your face, Mr. Gianfalla – despite her apparent opulence she has more concern for human rights and decency than you seem to. the one form of tolerance “the left” rarely displays is tolerance for hate, for bigotry, for deeming a certain class of citizens unfit to hold basic rights and freedoms the rest of us can enjoy at our leisure. you’re right, on that count “the left” – even that rich girl you so wittily eviscerated with your ad-hominem attack – will remain intolerant. and god bless them for it

  • Kathleen

    This article points out the extremist’s point of views. You are assuming that every liberal throws out the terms “homophobe” or “racist”. Both Democrats and Republicans alike have people in their party or factions that have these opinions, but this is not the case for everyone. As a liberal from California, which may be the most liberal state, coming to ND was a huge change. I went from a state which in middle school you learned that calling something “gay” was wrong to a school that students throw the term around like its no big deal. I don’t call people who do this “homophobes” but I do believe they are unaware of what this means. Your general assumption that all liberals jump to this conclusion is wrong.
    In regards to the Governor of New York’s statement, I’m pretty sure Governor Rick Perry after the law banning gay marriage in Texas made a similar statement telling people if they did not agree with the law, maybe they should find a state that does. Everyone makes statements like this so it should not be one of your main arguments if you’re going to state that liberals are intolerant.
    Lastly if you want to pull the Constitution card, there are a million interpretations of the Constitution. The wording has been picked apart for years and in the end everyone thinks they’re right. Republicans and Democrats can use the same amendment to argue for completely opposing claims because of a few words that can mean different things. Its a bold move to state that Republicans are supporting the Bill of Rights and the Constitution because it seems like you don’t believe the same to be true for Democrats.
    Mr. Gianfalla, I respect your opinions and I respect your desire to write them out for everyone to read, but in response I wanted to give my opinion as well.

  • Captain Murphy

    Doesn’t the bible consider polygamy traditional marriage? Does this idiot also think he should take his brother’s wipe as his should something happen to him?
    Marriage has been around since before recorded history and has been between a man and woman, a man and many women, and even between children.