Mean Speech for Thee, But not for MeLook at supposed hate speech. An empiricist would ignore Obamas recent warnings about the new wave of right-wing tough talk from Limbaugh and Beck, and determine instead whether the president remembers the novel Checkpoint, or the award-winning film about killing George Bush, or the venom of a Michael Moore or Keith Olbermann.
That is, a traditional inquirer would weigh the furor of the right against left, in ascertaining whether hate speech is at all partisan or simply politics of all stripes. And he would remind the president that it was Barack Obama himself who asked of his supporters to get in their faceand bragged if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun, and who used graphic examples in damning his opponents (cf. the taunt to Hannity (hell tear him up).
But you see, all this is not so. The postmodernist constructs a different reality. A person of color who is striving to level the playing field against oppressive interests speaks the truth to power. Of course, from time to time he draws on emotive language to drive home his points quite unlike the cool, detached, and deliberate attack narratives of those seeking to protect corporate or entrenched interests. [cf. Ann Coulter at the University of Ottawa.]
When Obama attacks Beck, or Hannity, or calls for someone to bring a gun to a fight, or has Rahm Emanuel curse a fence-sitting representative, these protocols seem extreme only to those whose economic interests are threatened. Poor children in Detroit or in the barrios of El Paso dont get the opportunity for tit-for-tat score-keeping, as if millionaires think they are entitled to the same fair treatment as their victims. When Limbaugh rails, it is to protect his Gulfstream 550; when Obama distorts, it is the expediency needed to wring from the wealthy salvation for the voiceless.
“When Limbaugh rails, it is to protect his Gulfstream 550; ...”
Did I miss the context or something? Is this really VDH?
No, VDH. When Limbaugh rails, it is to save the US Constitution, liberty, and the country our Founding Fathers created for us.
Dear Victor:
Take these ideas and rewrite them without the postmodern gloss.
Same column. Wider audience.
Obozo’s spectacular failure (and fail he must!) will signal the end of the Progressive Era.
We must help him along by defeating RINOS and Democrats in 2010 and 2012!
I appreciate VDH’s putting current affairs through the filter of today’s campus deep-thinkers. I now understand why I fail to understand anything our post-American president dreams up.
So, is he still a commie, or is just that a historical construct I’ve invented while clinging to what my father and other ancestors fought and bled for? Is my desire to enjoy the fruits of a lifetime of hard work and leave it to my children the incipient sign of a racist hater? I don’t think even a re-education camp will cure me.
Great article,as always, from VDH.
I often think of the endgame of the Democrats agenda. The relativism Hanson decries leads to real and predictable conclusions.If things continue on the present path, I see a time when the elites of today, so responsible for the destruction of our Constitution, will watch in horror as the Party leaders purge those who don’t support their particular flavor tyranny, as has happened so many times before. Or perhaps they will live to see an America under Sharia law, where the unbridled hedonism they seek is cause for a death sentence. Try scolding the Mullahs about tolerance and bigotry.
The absolute truths that are the consequence of this BS are real in a way that these idealists, with their heads in the clouds can’t begin to comprehend.
“Post-modern” - what exactly comes after modern, and do you need a time machine to get there?
bookmark