|
VOW
|
WHEN TOLERANCE MUTATES INTO BIGOTRY*
Richard Nixon coined the term "silent majority" during the Vietnam War, when he needed something to counteract the anti-war demonstrators who were becoming a regular feature on the evening news. So Nixon went on television and proclaimed that a "great silent majority" of the American people supported his policies no matter what the noisy demonstrators were saying. I don't know if Nixon had the numbers to back up his claim, but there does seem to be some substance to his theory. It often seems like a very small group of people is making most of the noise about a particular issue. Thus, a small segment of the populace is sometimes able to bring about major changes in the lives of the majority. Most of the time we don't complain. A "vocal minority" stirs things up and makes things happen. The "silent majority" sits back and observes the process on the nightly news. Both parties get what they want - for the price they are willing to pay. Democracy in action. No problem. Unless, of course, the silent majority doesn't like the way the vocal minority is running things. Then it simply means that the silent folks have to get off the couch and make their voices heard. Once they do, everything is back in balance. But what happens if a vocal minority is able to override the majority's wishes? I suspect this happens more than you might imagine. The vocal minority isn't bashful, but it's more difficult to know what the silent masses are thinking. In my opinion - based on admittedly unscientific observations - there is often a big disconnect between the way that "average people" view the world and the way that "noisy people" see things. And the more controversial the issue, the bigger the discrepancy. When it comes to contentious issues such as abortion, gun control, and homosexuality, the divergence can be huge. For instance, the noisy folks on the liberal end of the spectrum claim enlightened people support abortion on demand, stricter gun laws, and the recognition of homosexual "unions" as marriages. Clamorous conservatives, on the other hand, profess that reasonable people believe abortion is a euphemism for baby killing, homosexuality is an abomination, and the only gun control a person needs is a steady hand. In casual conversations with a quieter segment of society I hear a different story. The people that I talk to don't believe the government has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. But neither do they think that abortions should be so convenient they take the place of abstinence or birth control. They don't believe that discrimination based on sexual orientation is acceptable. But they don't think "loving relationships" between homosexual partners measure up to their standards for marriage. These people believe that reasonable gun laws are a good thing. But they don't believe that guns are the cause of violence in our society. They abhor discrimination and condemn slavery. But they don't believe that past sins are justification for any group of people - black, brown, or WASP - to receive special treatment today. And they don't believe trillions of dollars in "reparations", 100 years after slavery was abolished, is going to fix anything. I also hear something else - something that troubles me. I hear people saying they are reluctant to speak out against the liberal view on so-called "sensitive issues." They have no qualms about speaking out against Falwell, Liddy or Limbaugh. But they slink away and speak in hushed whispers when faced with the prospect of going up against Rosie or Oprah. When you examine the situation, their reluctance is understandable. The liberal movement is extremely powerful. Its followers have staked out the moral high ground by claiming to be defenders of diversity and tolerance. And they have made it clear that the debate is over. There is nothing left to discuss. Get over it. Anyone who opposes them is branded a racist, a bigot, or a homophobe. Taken in small doses, the liberal stance is admirable. Diversity and tolerance are noble goals. But extremism in pursuit of a noble goal is still extremism. The fanatical pursuit of tolerance leads to intolerance. Excessive virtue is a vice. The zealous pursuit of tolerance has brought the liberals full circle.
They now rigidly demand that everyone be "tolerant" like them. And anyone
who refuses is severely ostracized. The purported defenders of diversity
and tolerance have been blinded by their passion and have lost the ability
to see their own flaws. With tragic and poetic irony, the enemies of bigotry
have themselves become bigots.
_______________________________
|