-

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

-

viewpoint

A liberal apology

| Monday, February 24, 2014

I would like to congratulate Mr. Gianfalla on his column “The left’s intolerant ‘tolerance’” (Feb. 18), in which he nailed the Democratic Party. You have thoroughly demoralized me and my fellow liberals, who are always waving our so-called tolerance in your face and not making off-hand misogynistic comments while doing so.

I simply cannot argue with Mr. Gianfalla. It is quite clear that the Democratic Party is not tolerant of the bigoted and intolerant, and ipso facto the party is intolerant, since the meaning of tolerance is obviously accepting all views with no opposition and thereby having no real stance on anything. That’s just fair and balanced logic. For years, we have clearly been blind to the effects of our bigoted ways of opposing those who hold prejudiced beliefs, which call for the exclusion of certain groups from the full enjoyment of their human rights. You are right, Mr. Gianfalla, to show us that this vehement opposition to Conservatives has only introduced more hate and bigotry into the world in the form of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, the 19th Amendment and Brown v. Board of Education.

I cannot believe liberals don’t recognize it as support for traditional marriage when someone vilifies homosexuality. From now on, we will not be so belligerent towards those who persecute homosexuals, who are so obviously out to sabotage conventional marriage. My parents have often told me their so many years of traditional marriage would mean nothing if another form of marriage was permitted to coexist with traditional marriage.

I am so glad Mr. Gianfalla condemned the liberals’ “war on the wealthy” because all that bloodshed has to stop. Oh wait, there’s no actual violence? Or, rather the seizing of wealthy individuals’ accounts — oh wait, that’s not happening either? Well, the calls for a truly progressive tax system and for addressing income inequality, which definitely merit the term “war,” must end. And if anyone still doesn’t think this has become a war, then please tell me why the liberals enlisted the help of a foreign theocrat who rules from his Golden Throne in Rome to spread their un-American message?
Mr. Gianfalla also made great points about other issues that I do not have the space to cover here. Overall, it is clear the Democratic Party does not “spew tolerance” in the way we often claim to spew it. I am glad our eyes are now opened to our intolerance. Democrats should definitely return to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but not as much those new parts with the “tolerance” of universal suffrage and equal protection under the law because it would be intolerant of us to oppose the intolerance of our Founding Fathers.

Tags: , ,

About Tyler Bowen

Contact Tyler
  • Reality Check

    Two words: Alvin Homes

  • You sure?

    You do realize that more Republicans than Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, right? And the Voting Rights Act. And the 19th Amendment. I mean how ignorant can you possibly be?

    I thought Mark’s article was ridiculous… until I read this.

    • Quick Note:

      The only reason Republicans supported more than Democrats in relation to Civil Rights- Dems primarily came from the good ol’ south, thus a legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Soooo the Democratic Party was divided between Southern Democrats, most of whom opposed civil rights legislation, and other Democrats who, for the most part, supported it.

      I don’t think those examples were party exclusive, as in look at the democrats always being right, it was meant more as an example throughout history of fighting for equality through challenging. Because lets be honest, both parties have not supported causes they should have or supported causes they should not have.

      • You sure?

        I agree with what you’re saying, but that wasn’t the point the author made.

        • Quick Note:

          That’s the way I read it. One has to realize, which I’m pretty sure the author knows, that Democrat and Republican ideology has changed drastically. Those examples weren’t for HEY LOOK DEMOCRATS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN RIGHT…because that just isn’t true.

          Seriously it was one part of the article that, yes I will admit, is a little confusing and not clear. But the overall message is still there and not warped.

    • Ignorance22

      “You do realize that more Republicans than Democrats supported the Civil
      Rights Act of 1964, right? And the Voting Rights Act. And the 19th
      Amendment. I mean how ignorant can you possibly be?”

      It appears that both of you are ignorant!

      For the Civil Rights Act, in the House 152 Democrats voted for it and 138 Republicans voted for. In the Senate 44 Democrats voted for it and 27 Republicans voted for it.

      Voting Rights Act:
      House: Democrats -221 Republicans – 112
      Senate: Democrats – 47 Republicans – 30

      Both bills passed primarily because of the Democratic party, however they were both largely bipartisan since neither party had the votes or will to pass the bills along party lines.

      19th Amendment:
      House: Republicans 200 Democrats 104

      Senate: Republicans 36 Democrats 20

      The 19th Amendment was passed primarily because of the Republican party, but once again did pass with bipartisan support.

  • Not Ignorant

    Yes, I do realize that. I happen to know my high school history. Those references are meant to highlight that the fighting for change means that challenging those with different views is not intolerance, but part of a fight for a change you hope to bring about. Fortunately, in the case of Civil Rights, it was. This issue can extend beyond historical and partisan lines.

    • T

      You explicitly made it about party lines. Don’t try to back out now.

  • Not Ignorant

    And also it was not like Democrats were not leaders in passing the Civil Rights Act either. Lyndon Johnson was a democratic president, and many students and young leaders at the time who were involved in the Civil Rights Movement were also Democrats. So the reference is not totally offbase, but the point remains that challenging inequality is something that can transcend party lines.

  • Johnny Whichard

    REVEREND MLK. JR. republican. not a racist modern-day liberal like Obama would have you believe…He was also pro-life.

  • J

    So basically, Tyler, in your illogical rant, what you seem to be saying is that, because Democrats strongly dislike and disagree with people who are intolerant of others and their ways of life, for example people who are opposed to gay marriage, that liberals are themselves the intolerant ones and conservatives are actually the tolerant more enlightened ones? And for your evidence you use to support this claim are laws passed largely by liberals (excluding Democrat and Republican as labels for now) that were enacted that make up legal framework for universal equality in this country – a country that, lets remember made it legal to own other human beings, made it legal to count a Black person as 2/3 of a person, then made it legal to discriminate against others based on genders and belief systems, and a country whose capital city – which is meant to symbolize freedom – was built by slaves.

    Because its the conservative movement that opposed getting rid of slavery. It’s the conservative movement that resisted integration in the schools and workplace. It’s the conservative movement that places the emphasis on economic “freedom” over simply what is the moral right in the world (and Jesus’s teachings FYI). It’s the conservative movement that by definition wants to remain the same, and never break from the norms or change things. Yes you may be the current Republican Party but that does not at all mean it stands for the party of Lincoln and the party of tolerance. It’s the conservative movement that is intolerant of what is different and always has been. They may wear different name tags, but Lincoln, Teddy, Grant and Eisenhower would all be Democrats today. They were all most certainly the liberals of their times.

    You say liberals are intolerant of those who are intolerant of other lifestyles. You’re wrong. Believe what you want to believe. What liberals are so vehemently against, is those who push to make their dogmas universal. But we don’t try to restrict the way you believe. We don’t tell you you cannot read the Bible. We don’t tell you you can’t believe in Biblical teachings – Or that you can’t believe whatever it is you believe. What we absolutely oppose though is conservatives pushing their beliefs and lifestyles on others.

    Continue your “support for traditional marriage,” or hate of same-sex marriage as I would call it. Go on and believe conservatively about social issues. Their are liberals who don’t like homosexuality just like their are conservatives who are in favor of homosexuality – there are even homosexual republicans in state congresses around the country. Same goes for abortion, and English becoming the only language – there are those believers on both sides, and those opposed on both sides. But don’t try to make your belief system the law of the land. In fifty years, we can see who is on the right side of history.

    There are tons of social issues that both liberals and conservatives can agree on and that’s great. But in the end believe what you want, live by it and be happy. Our difference is we let others do the same, because here’s the thing about tolerance. It has nothing to with what you believe and how you live. It’s the willingness to let others believe and live by what they believe.

    Maybe this wont change a single mind in the world, and maybe it will lead to more “Obama’s a racist” comments like the guy below me but oh well.
    (And for Johnny Whichard, not sure how Democrats are somehow racist but it should go without saying MLK was a liberal when liberals were Republicans and would certainly be a Democrat today)

    • JJ

      Wow… this person missed the point.

    • Ever heard of sarcasm my dear friend?

  • A tolerant student

    I think the author used “Republican Party” and “conservative” as well as “Democratic Party” and “liberal” a little too interchangeably. What I think he meant is that the left aka the liberal side has always been the more tolerant and open minded. The Republican and Democratic parties haven’t always been the way they are now so it is a mistake to apply those names to argue historical issues. The Republican party of the early 20th century is nothing at all like the republican party now. And one cannot possibly argue that Democrats are the conservative party because they advocated conserving slavery during the years leading to the Civil War.

    • You sure?

      That’s not really true. Republicans have remained fairly consistent in terms of economic policy so it would be fair to say the left has always been more tolerant and open minded.

      • You sure?

        wouldn’t*

  • I say we sit down and listen to Beach House and just be friends
    – Scene