[This is the first of an ongoing series of essays in which I discuss the concepts and positions that caused me to renounce my alignment with modern liberalism and/or the Democrat Party. It is meant to challenge readers on the other side and make them think hard about these issues.]
My liberal friends and family pride themselves in being tolerant and some even claim that I lack this virtue due to my new-found affiliation. After all, isn't that what the left is always saying—that theirs is the ideology of tolerance and ours isn't?
Well, they're right. I'm not tolerant. Yes, you read that right. I am an intolerant person.
But the key question is: Of what am I intolerant? The point I'm trying to make is that everyone is intolerant of something; it's exactly what we're (in)tolerant of that defines our character. So, when a left-winger accuses a right-winger of being intolerant, she's* not telling the full story (kind of like Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth. Oh, scooore!)
Let's make one thing clear: Despite all their claims to the contrary, liberals are just as intolerant as conservatives, if not even more so. But each side is intolerant of different things. And there's the rub: The things I am (in)tolerant of is utterly out of synch with those of the left.
Now, people can be intolerant of whatever the hell they want; I don't care. It's when they take the next step that's disconcerting, namely, imposing their views on the rest of us, either through legislation or violent force. This is extremely important, because I would bet that there are more laws on the books preventing us from doing things that liberals are intolerant of than conservatives are. (This will be the topic of a future post)
For instance, it's one thing to abhor fattening and artery-clogging food. But ever since the left has identified transfat as public enemy #1, they have managed to ban it in one major city and they're far from done. In other words, it's not enough for the "food fascists" on the left to be intolerant of transfat, but they have now made your tolerance of it a crime. Then there's all the smoking bans (see here and here, for instance). And I'm a non-smoker and can't stand cigarette smoke.
Of course, remind any of these liberal busybodies that alcohol causes more deaths than second-hand cigarette smoke ever will, and therefore should be banned, and you will see one shreaking stomping-mad liberal!
Another example is the environmentalist left's craze with those curly fluorescent bulbs. I've actually had one of those things mailed to me accompanied by environmentalist literature, an experience eerily similar to being solicited at your home by Jehovah's Witnesses. To be sure, those fluorescent bulbs use less energy than standard incandescent bulbs, but did you know that it can cost $2,000 to clean up the mercury if one breaks? Be that as it may, the left is not only intolerant of standard bulbs, but they are in the process of making them illegal.
This, my friends, is called imposing one's views on the rest of us, and it is what happens when intolerance goes too far.
Of course, there are things the right is intolerant of. They're not big fans of sex outside of marriage; hence their strong campaign to stress abstinence in sex ed classes. Nor is the right—and others not necessarily on the right—too keen on abortion. (I happen to agree with them on both issues, but that's for another post.)
Another thing the right is intolerant of, but the left seems not to be, is Islamic terrorists. The distinction is demonstrated almost daily on TV, in the newspapers, and in Washington.
And here's where the difference between my (in)tolerance and the left's becomes so mind-blowingly stark: If a dish at your restaurant contains transfat, you get your hands chopped off. Or if you get caught reading the NY Times under the light of a standard lightbulb, it's off to the electric chair. But if you're an Al Qaeda terrorist picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan and are getting three squares and a prayer rug at G'tmo, liberals will demand you be freed, or at least be given habeas corpus rights and access to American civilian courts (unless, of course, you're an Al Qaeda terrorist who's using a standard lightbulb; then you’re screwed!)
To be continued ...
* In this blog I refer to the 3rd person singular with the pronoun “she, her, etc.” Because if there's one thing I'm not, it's sexist!
The New Thought Police 
Recent Comments