The Left's Favorite Enemy Conjured Up Again

My lefty friends stare at me blankly when I ask why that outdated, goofy guy known as "The Man" is still at the core of their social doctrine.  They insist theirs is a political orientation that is sophisticated and intellectual, appreciative of the nuances of modern capitalistic society and the actual individual human beings involved therein.  Then we get this:

Chris Matthews, on Tuesday's "Hardball," invited on California Senator Barbara Boxer to dismiss the increasing number of town hall protestors opposed to Obama's liberal agenda as the "angry, and "noisy," "well-dressed middle-class people in pinks and limes...Brooks Brothers Brigade."

And,

The White House is now taking a hard line against the Tea-Party organized disruptions of Democrats' town hall meetings, the Washington Times reports, with press secretary Robert Gibbs referring to it this morning as "the Brook Brothers Brigade"....

He's back!  And he's white, old, in khakis and a blue oxford ... The Man!! 

The divisive intent of "well dressed middle class people" intentionally stokes class envy, at best, and is bigoted and hateful, at its worst.  These citizens, like all people, deserve both dignity and respect. 

On envy

Envy is a deadly sin.  It is a decision to ignore our shared humanity.

Class envy, albeit one of the two foundations of the modern Democratic Party's soul (identity politics being the other), is very divisive.  It is a tool that exploits happy people who were previously neither aware of their forced group membership nor of their antipathy toward other groups.  It pits people against each other like fighting dogs.  It is a tool used in previous tyrannies but one that should remain on the historical scrap heap. 

The dead end philosophy behind the manipulative hubris of this administration and the Pelosi Congress recognizes no such truths, perceives no historical warnings, sees all means as justified by ends and is trapped in its own self-serving narrative.

Class envy as a Democratic tool is not isolated to the Brooks Brothers event.  Recall the AIG outrage, Wall Street bonus commentary and taxes on the "wealthy" as the source of all funds?

On bigotry

This is obvious, but it bears mention.  Our cherished concepts and deepest flaws are two way streets.  This is true of democracy -- everyone gets a vote, not just those who agree with you.  This is true of community organizing - if it's good to organize to be heard, that's true for all viewpoints along the spectrum.  And this is true of bigotry.

A bigot is a person who is obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his or her own religion, political party, organization, belief, or opinion, especially one who regards or treats those of differing devotion with hatred and intolerance.

Yes, race-based discrimination is definitely bigotry.  However, racism has not cornered the market on bigotry.  Bigotry takes many forms beyond just this classic example. 

It is hateful and intolerant to slander those with whom we disagree.  Simply because my neighbor disagrees with my political sentiments, I may not demean him as a racist, bigot, idiot or extremist. 

The following are each examples of bigotry:


Our President has been using "they" and "them" quite a bit.  He said the following in reference to citizens clamoring to be heard at town hall meetings:

But I don't want the folks that created the mess -- I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.  ... I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking.

And on Friday in Montana:

Every time we are in sight of health insurance reform, the special interests fight back with everything they've got. They use their influence, they run their ads, and their political allies try to scare the heck out of everybody.

Them who?  They who?  What folks?  What special interests?  Did anyone voting last November believe the winner of the election would represent only those who voted for him?  Did anyone believe that a vote cast might neuter that voter's future ability to participate in democracy?  Did anyone voting for McCain expect such intolerance from Obama, or anyone voting for Obama expect such intolerance from McCain?

The word "they" has a really creepy way of simplifying, stereotyping, dismissing and aggregating so as to diminish the dignity of individuals, as in the following uses: "They are always trying to keep us down."  "They are subversive."  "They need to get out of the way."  Our civil rights heroes are very cognizant of the misuses of "they".

Mr. President, is it time to break a few eggs to make this omelet?  Maybe send in the unions?  What's our next thuggish step boss?

Did these people become "theys" because they were loud, upset or yearning to be heard before legislation was finalized?  Did it occur to the President that their urgency was created by the previous bills that were ramrodded into law with nary a peep of feedback or review?

A new, subjective sliding scale is being established, with "acceptable conduct" determined only by the ranking members of the new left pantheon, based on that day's necessary narrative.  This means the Man is back and can be inserted whenever and wherever disguised bigotry is useful for brass knuckle politics.  This, from the tele-prompted change and hope guy, is not leadership. 
My lefty friends stare at me blankly when I ask why that outdated, goofy guy known as "The Man" is still at the core of their social doctrine.  They insist theirs is a political orientation that is sophisticated and intellectual, appreciative of the nuances of modern capitalistic society and the actual individual human beings involved therein.  Then we get this:

Chris Matthews, on Tuesday's "Hardball," invited on California Senator Barbara Boxer to dismiss the increasing number of town hall protestors opposed to Obama's liberal agenda as the "angry, and "noisy," "well-dressed middle-class people in pinks and limes...Brooks Brothers Brigade."

And,

The White House is now taking a hard line against the Tea-Party organized disruptions of Democrats' town hall meetings, the Washington Times reports, with press secretary Robert Gibbs referring to it this morning as "the Brook Brothers Brigade"....

He's back!  And he's white, old, in khakis and a blue oxford ... The Man!! 

The divisive intent of "well dressed middle class people" intentionally stokes class envy, at best, and is bigoted and hateful, at its worst.  These citizens, like all people, deserve both dignity and respect. 

On envy

Envy is a deadly sin.  It is a decision to ignore our shared humanity.

Class envy, albeit one of the two foundations of the modern Democratic Party's soul (identity politics being the other), is very divisive.  It is a tool that exploits happy people who were previously neither aware of their forced group membership nor of their antipathy toward other groups.  It pits people against each other like fighting dogs.  It is a tool used in previous tyrannies but one that should remain on the historical scrap heap. 

The dead end philosophy behind the manipulative hubris of this administration and the Pelosi Congress recognizes no such truths, perceives no historical warnings, sees all means as justified by ends and is trapped in its own self-serving narrative.

Class envy as a Democratic tool is not isolated to the Brooks Brothers event.  Recall the AIG outrage, Wall Street bonus commentary and taxes on the "wealthy" as the source of all funds?

On bigotry

This is obvious, but it bears mention.  Our cherished concepts and deepest flaws are two way streets.  This is true of democracy -- everyone gets a vote, not just those who agree with you.  This is true of community organizing - if it's good to organize to be heard, that's true for all viewpoints along the spectrum.  And this is true of bigotry.

A bigot is a person who is obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his or her own religion, political party, organization, belief, or opinion, especially one who regards or treats those of differing devotion with hatred and intolerance.

Yes, race-based discrimination is definitely bigotry.  However, racism has not cornered the market on bigotry.  Bigotry takes many forms beyond just this classic example. 

It is hateful and intolerant to slander those with whom we disagree.  Simply because my neighbor disagrees with my political sentiments, I may not demean him as a racist, bigot, idiot or extremist. 

The following are each examples of bigotry:


Our President has been using "they" and "them" quite a bit.  He said the following in reference to citizens clamoring to be heard at town hall meetings:

But I don't want the folks that created the mess -- I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.  ... I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking.

And on Friday in Montana:

Every time we are in sight of health insurance reform, the special interests fight back with everything they've got. They use their influence, they run their ads, and their political allies try to scare the heck out of everybody.

Them who?  They who?  What folks?  What special interests?  Did anyone voting last November believe the winner of the election would represent only those who voted for him?  Did anyone believe that a vote cast might neuter that voter's future ability to participate in democracy?  Did anyone voting for McCain expect such intolerance from Obama, or anyone voting for Obama expect such intolerance from McCain?

The word "they" has a really creepy way of simplifying, stereotyping, dismissing and aggregating so as to diminish the dignity of individuals, as in the following uses: "They are always trying to keep us down."  "They are subversive."  "They need to get out of the way."  Our civil rights heroes are very cognizant of the misuses of "they".

Mr. President, is it time to break a few eggs to make this omelet?  Maybe send in the unions?  What's our next thuggish step boss?

Did these people become "theys" because they were loud, upset or yearning to be heard before legislation was finalized?  Did it occur to the President that their urgency was created by the previous bills that were ramrodded into law with nary a peep of feedback or review?

A new, subjective sliding scale is being established, with "acceptable conduct" determined only by the ranking members of the new left pantheon, based on that day's necessary narrative.  This means the Man is back and can be inserted whenever and wherever disguised bigotry is useful for brass knuckle politics.  This, from the tele-prompted change and hope guy, is not leadership.