Posted on 10/13/2003 7:21:20 PM PDT by NYC Republican
I was one of three panelists on Bruce DuMont's "Beyond the Beltway" radio/television show last night. Bruce had planned on spending the first 20 minutes or so of the program discussing Rush Limbaugh and then moving on to other issues like the California recall election, the war in Iraq, and the 2004 Democrat presidential race.
But within minutes of mentioning Rush's name, the phone lines lit up like a Christmas tree and stayed that way for the next 2 hours. Comments from callers ranged all across the board: everything from "he's a scumbag hypocrite who got what he deserved" all the way to "liberals are liars and cheats with no moral standing on which to judge others." Talk about your rollercoaster.
Anyway, as the only Republican/conservative on the panel, I ended up in the somewhat unenviable position of trying to defend Limbaugh's alleged drug habit. Actually, let me rephrase that. I really didn't defend Rush's actions other than to say I thought that 1) he had a personal problem that required treatment, 2) he made a courageous and poignant effort in addressing the issue on Friday and 3) he should face the consequences of his actions if he's convicted of breaking the law. Maybe this will lead to Rush doing some time, maybe it won't (I'm not a lawyer but I'd be surprised if a first offense will result in Rush going to prison). The point is that Rush Limbaugh shouldn't be above the law.
What I did defend over the course of the show, however, is the predictable argument that conservatives are all hypocrites because they dare to discuss "values" and "morality" and then have the nerve to defend people, including some of the most notable leaders of the movement like Limbaugh and Bill Bennett, whose own personal failings, vices, sins, etc. are exposed.
First, let me say I will concede that, generally speaking, people don't like to be "lectured to." I'll also concede that people have every right to look at an individual's past actions to make a critical evaluation of their positions and/or credibility on a given issue.
But the core of the liberal argument is that in order for anyone to discuss "morality" or "values" of any kind, he or she must be an absolute paragon of virtue in every respect. This is absurd on its face. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion would result in a very small group of people having a very brief discussion on morality in American life - probably somewhere in the middle of Kansas.
I may decide I don't want to take Rush Limbaugh's advice on drugs, Bill Bennett's advice on gambling, or have Bill Clinton give me tips on marriage, but that doesn't mean these men should be automatically disqualified from discussing "values" or "morality" in any way - especially as they relate to the formulation of public policy in this country.
One panelist actually told me the difference between liberals and conservatives is that "we preach tolerance, you preach morality" - as if the two are somehow mutually exclusive. I almost laughed. "That's it America! You can be either A) moral and intolerant or B) tolerant and immoral. Make your choice."
In one sense, though, the panelist was correct: the term "tolerance" has become the all encompassing catchphrase of liberals and progressives everywhere. It has, in effect, become their morality.
"Tolerance" used to stand for the simple idea of religious and racial freedom and equality. It used to stand for the concept that while we may not necessarily agree with each other, we would strive to see and respect each other as American citizens, equal in the eyes of God and the law.
Unfortunately, that's only a small part of what "tolerance" stands for today. The word "tolerance" has now been expanded to encompass a whole host of issues, from abortion-on-demand to affirmative action to homosexual marriage to school choice. The list is practically endless.
And by collating all of these various issues under the umbrella of "tolerance," liberals have now defined any opposition to these policies - irrespective of fact, debate or merit - as "intolerant." End of discussion.
This is one reason why, I believe, a good number of liberals have come to see conservatives not just as fellow citizens with a differing world view, but as truly hateful, nasty people who want to roll back the clock to the days of Jim Crow, child labor and back-alley abortions.
It's an astonishing feat, really. Progressives have spent the last few decades carving America up into tiny little pieces, nurturing and germinating a multitude of hyphenated interest groups, and at the same time they've managed to boil everything down to singular litmus test of tolerance.
It's been an effective strategy - especially as practiced in the last decade by Bill Clinton. But the result hasn't been such a good thing for the country. We've now seen the concept of "tolerance" turned on its head. Today "tolerance" is used as a bludgeon to intimidate opponents and stifle debate, and its most devoted practioners are really and truly the least tolerant people in America. - T. Bevan 10:34 a
We need to seperate they need for wishing Rush a speedy recovery and the blessings of Christ from the rule of law. Rush may have broken the rule of law. That would by definition of most states mean he committed a criminal act if he indeed did.
Bad news, indeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.