The left’s intolerant ‘tolerance’
Mark Gianfalla | Tuesday, February 18, 2014
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.