Let's Talk
Liberal – the new four-letter word
Words are an essential part of how we communicate with each other. We can create alternate realities in novels just by using words. We can develop theories and communicate ideas by using words. And we can communicate our feelings by using words. The ability to speak and communicate using words is an ability shared among humans. But not everyone uses words with good intentions. That applies especially to liberals.
Barack Obama abuses a word
Official portrait of President Barack Obama. Credit: The White House
Since Barack Obama arrived on the political scene, he and his allies have used the word racist to discredit anyone who disagrees with the President’s policies. It didn’t take liberals long to discover that they could use this exceptionally insulting word to disparage and disarm all opposing views. During the Recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez in New Jersey, Senator Menendez’s camp called those in the Recall movement racists, since Senator Menendez is of Cuban descent. And thanks to media propaganda, in the past two years anyone associated with the TEA Party movement is now suspected of being a racist.
Of course in all of the above instances, no one ever offered facts to substantiate the racist claim. Nevertheless the word carries a great deal of weight. Fortunately, the strength of the left’s racist claims against the right is diminishing, as more and more people realize that the liberals used the word as an assault weapon rather than an honest rebuke.
False conservatives abuse the word liberal
Recently, dubious factions within the Conservative movement have taken a lead from their liberal counterparts. They do not invoke the word racist against their opponents. Few in the Conservative movement would believe that of their compatriots. They use a word that is as equally detestable among their ranks as the word racist is to the general public: the word liberal, here meaning one sticking to liberalism. That word conjures up emotions of distrust and disdain. And like their “liberal” counterparts, these self-proclaimed Conservatives resort to distorting truths and twisting facts to justify their use of the word. The label liberal may be a badge of honor to those who truly uphold those philosophies. But to deceitful Conservatives, it is nothing more nor less than an assault weapon, which they use against anyone who challenges their positions. Happily, those in the Conservative movement tend to check out facts before passing judgment. So those who maliciously use the word liberal as a weapon against their opponents may find that this particular weapon has a tendency to backfire.
RoseAnn Salanitri is a published author and Acquisition Editor for the New Jersey Family Policy Council. She is a community activist who has founded the Sussex County Tea Party in her home state and launched a recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez. RoseAnn is also the founder of Veritas Christian Academy, as well as co-founder of Creation Science Alive, and a national creation science speaker.
-
Executive2 days agoJanuary 6 case comes down to selective prosecution
-
News2 days agoRolling the Dice on Republicans: Has the Right Become Delusional?
-
Executive21 hours agoWhy Fatal Police Shootings Aren’t Declining: Some Uncomfortable Facts
-
Civilization20 hours agoPresident Biden Must Not Encourage Illegal Mass Migration From Haiti
-
Civilization2 days agoBiology, the Supreme Court, and truth
-
Entertainment Today22 hours agoWaste of the Day: Throwback Thursday: Millions Went To Video Game ‘Research’
-
Guest Columns20 hours agoWhat Was Won in No Labels’ Crusade
-
Constitution20 hours agoEquality Under the Law and Conflicts of Interest in New York
I’m merely curious, who are these “dubious factions within the Conservative movement?”
Who’s left? Elitists of course, and they come in every size, shape and color.
I am just curious who exactly you’re talking about, like, are you talking about Americans for Prosperity, or Neo-Conservatives, or the Log Cabin Republicans?
Give me a name or two, and I’ll have a look myself.
Thanks
Camille,
None of the above. However, I’d like not to mention the groups specifically, since I don’t want to become part of the problem by further dividing NJ Conservatives. If you have been involved with any of them, you wouldn’t have to ask, you would know.
RoseAnn,
I have some questions about your answer to Camille, in which you state “However, I’d like not to mention the groups specifically, since I don’t want to become part of the problem by further dividing NJ Conservatives”.
In your essay you refer to these people as “False conservatives”, “dubious factions”, “these self-proclaimed Conservatives”, and “deceitful Conservatives”.
Those are strong accusations, and if you see a need to draw an “Us vs. Them” contrast with individuals who consider themselves conservative as well, it’s disingenuous not to name them and be willing to defend your statements.
The creation of the NJ Tea Party Caucus is an action that both unifies and divides. Publishing the specific platform, principles and member organizations of the Caucus is the uniting action, allowing like-minded people to decide that this is a group they want to join and support. It’s also a divisive act because as your own essay states, you are doing it in part to distinguish yourselves from groups that label themselves as “Conservatives” and “Tea Party Organizations”, but whose values are different enough from yours to make you want to disassociate yourselves from them.
If you are going to accuse other of acting in bad faith as you do above, you should have the integrity to name them and stand behind your words. Otherwise, you’re essentially just creating a bogeyman and saying “we’re not them”, and for all practical purposes there may not be any real people doing what you claim.
I don’t regard you as a deceitful person, but wanted to say this so you’d understand why people would view disclosure as the more principled position in this matter.
Personally, I think the Obamanazis are the worst racists in the country. They hate whites and Jews and firmly believe that people of color, like blacks and latinos are so stupid, backward and pitiful that they need all the extra help and OVER equality, and “entitlements” they can be possibly be given. Of course, that’s a fraud too, because the real agenda of the New Nazis is the economic destruction of the US by overloading the system…and the “entitlement” etc are just a convenient way to spend and waste as much money as they can….they really have no consideration for minorities other than the easiest excuse to waste money. How many “vacations” has Obama had? 42 or so?…..how many have the rest of us been able to afford? Makes ya think, huh?
Sooo, these “Obamanazis” hate whites, Jews, and people of color? Who’s left, then?
I think you’re a parodist. Not a funny parodist, just a sad one.
Funny how you used the word “liberal” quite often during your failed recall effort.
Even more comical is how your argument mirrors those made by Jimmy Carter against Ronald Reagan in 1980, and Bill Clinton against Newt in the mid 90’s.
So suddenly Roseann doesn’t like the word liberal. She certainly seemed to enjoy it while pursuing her failed recall attempt.
From what I gather, Roseann is unable to further divide conservatives, so that is not a good reason not to name the groups she is talking about.
It would appear that she is trying to run for office and destroy the conservative movement in New Jersey at the same time. Simply amazing.
Roseann, you and liberal LaRossa should go quietly into the good night and just fade away. Why won’t you?
Tell you what, Roland: if you have one scintilla of evidence to support your claim, send it to me at the info@cnav.news address. I monitor it during every waking hour that I can spare at my console.
In terms that maybe you’ll understand, I call. I’ll do better than that: here’s your raise, and I’ll raise you just as much.
The left uses the word racist because members of the right have concocted movements based on bigotry. Specifically the “birthers” and the “churchers.” Both have had a heavy following, and both have had their fires stoked by the right through demagoguery. Donald Trump is an excellent recent example of this.
The “birthers” maintained their credibility because in the guts of the followers, Obama is a foreigner. He is worldly, knows the customs of other nations, he doesn’t “look” American. Which is probably because he is brown.
The “churchers'” following was bolstered from propaganda made from information taken out of context, the fact that he has “Hussein” as his middle name, and that he respects the customs of foreign (Muslim) countries. The heart of this movement is the feeling that Muslims are bad people who ought not be president (which is discriminatory).
The TEA Party gained flack for this because it has a higher proportion of (open) racists compared to other mainstream parties, because much of its base are these “birthers” and “churchers,” and because of its very vocal anti-Muslim rhetoric (I believe I have heard suggestions for deportation, that all Muslims are treacherous, that they should not be allowed to construct any mosques, etc.).
In other words, “racist” is strictly not applicable, “bigoted” or “discriminatory” are more correct. The right have earned this title by playing the aforementioned cards in their pursuit of political power. If you use demagoguery to get votes, you deserve what’s coming to you.
As for the “liberal” half of the equation, I noticed that the right have redefined words to suit their political game. These words are secularism, communism, socialism, and liberalism. The right’s definition of them is just about non-existent. They exist purely for emotional power, the ability to exploit voters latent feelings and fears associated with their misunderstanding of the concepts. Take secularism, it is the policy of state to keep religion out of politics. To the right, it means the fear of religious people being sent to concentration camps because they are not atheists. Communism and socialism are different plans for a centralized economy, with communism taking it as far as organizing collectives and abolishing private property. To the right, this means high taxes, breadlines, and the red scare. Liberalism is a values system that challenges authority, seeks egalitarianism, human rights and supports free market economics. The right believes it is some kind of Orwellian thought police system, akin to totalitarianism.