Nine minutes of hate
The endless double standards of the left
By Dr. Grace Vuoto
Media leftists are becoming consumed with hatred. On April 14, MSNBC host Chris Matthews sunk to an all-time low by conducting an interview with commentator and comedian Bill Maher that reeked of chauvinism, racism, elitism and was full of double standards. In a nine-minute segment on Hardball with Chris Matthews, they both insulted women, Republicans, conservatives, Alaskans and millions of Tea Party participants—all with a tone of self-righteous indignation.
Both men used language regarding former Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin and Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann that would be roundly denounced by feminists if used by a conservative. In describing Mrs. Palin’s voice, Mr. Matthews said she speaks in a “different octave” to which Mr. Maher replied it was akin to “fingernails on a chalkboard.” Both brought attention to the fact that the women are attractive: Mr. Matthews said the women add the “glamor edge” to the Republican Party; Mr. Maher called them “MILFS,” which he defined as “morons I want to forget.” He deliberately used a colloquial sexual acronym, changed its meaning for humor—but still with the intent of demeaning the two female political leaders and conjuring images of them as sexual objects. Together, the two commentators were akin to two schoolboys gawking at the girls. Where were the “progressive” sensibilities of these middle-aged men?
Both analysts mocked the credentials, knowledge and intellectual ability of Mrs. Palin—which has some merit given the abysmal interviews she has conducted and her thin level of knowledge. Yet, why lump Mrs. Bachmann in the same category? Are the mistakes of one woman naturally transferred onto another; are women to be judged as a “collective”—which is exactly what feminists have railed against for several decades? Mr. Maher said he would love to see them both on the quiz show Jeopardy, smirking that they would fare ill. He also said there is a “deficit” of female role models. Does he believe that only men are worthy of admiration and emulation?
Mr. Maher continued to tar whole groups with sweeping, sophomoric statements. He referred to Mrs. Palin as the former governor of “a state with no people.” Alaska does indeed have a small population of approximately 700,000 yet they are worthy of representation and duly elected Mrs. Palin. Mr. Maher’s condescending tone implied that the achievements or needs of Alaskans are not as vital as those of states inhabited by more people. It is unlikely Mr. Maher would address President Barack Obama’s previous work as a community organizer, evidently also with a relatively small population, with the same derision. Mr. Obama’s work as a community organizer was hailed by many liberals throughout the 2008 campaign as an example of his great humility and his selfless service to the people.
Yet the most appalling and deliberate slurs were launched at the so-called “birthers”—the term used by Mr. Matthews to belittle the growing number of concerned citizens who are demanding that Mr. Obama reveal his birth certificate. Mr. Maher said these “birthers” are little more than “sore losers” who are trying to find a way to remove the president from office; he compared this to the Republican use of the Paula Jones sexual harassment case to impeach then-President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The analyst said the movement is fundamentally a racist one: “If there‘s one thing they absolutely cannot stand, it is being called racist. If there‘s another thing they absolutely cannot stand, of course, it’s black people.”
Mr. Maher failed to observe that in both cases, the American people have the right to protect themselves from any unlawful behavior from their leaders. Mr. Clinton was impeached in 1998 by the House for perjury and obstruction of justice—actions that he brought upon himself. Similarly, Mr. Obama’s legitimacy is being questioned due to his failure to comply with the requirements of the Constitution and demonstrate his birth certificate; he is bringing this upon himself. Hence, the “birthers” are not racists; they are exercising their rights to hold leaders accountable under the laws of the land. When Mr. Gore contested the results of the 2000 election, the left by and large applauded the attempt to challenge the legitimacy of the presidency of George W. Bush. Yet when conservatives do the same, they are denounced as pathological, provincial racists.
Mr. Matthews and Mr. Maher attempted to further tar the conservative movement and Tea Party as racist. Mr. Matthews said that we have to “connect the dots” and observe that some of the language being used against the Obama administration is reminiscent of the pre-Civil War era: “A lot of pre-Civil War antebellum lingo coming out, dripping from the lips of these Southern Republicans. I think there is a connection, myself.”
Mr. Maher said categorically that the conservative movement and its Tea Party incarnation are full of “religious lunatics, flat-earthers and Civil War reenacters.” He said the Civil War period cannot be recast as simply about states rights or economic issues—as the central issue was slavery: “…when you are nostalgic for a period in history that was very bad to a certain group of people, it’s sort of insulting to that group of people…” By that standard, most of human history is insulting to the vast majority of the human race—including white men—for prosperity, peace and freedom are the exception in world history not the rule.
Yet, the Tea Party movement and conservatives are mostly using the language of the Revolutionary period of the late 1700s rather than the language of the mid 1800s. Even the secessionist sentiments emanating from some contemporary conservatives have their origin in the doctrine of states rights established by the Founding Fathers.
The upshot is that Mr. Matthews and Mr. Maher want to create a straw man Confederate Tea Party Movement rather than acknowledge that the current Tea Party is rooted in a traditional form of American protest and revolt inspired by the American Revolution.
This segment on national television was nine minutes of pure hate. It should be used in American textbooks as an example of how the left flagrantly violates its own ideals. The two liberal cohorts ignored their ideology’s vaunted regard for women; they forgot about their customary celebration of individual merit; they trampled on the liberal invocation to respect different groups and regions by belittling Alaska; they dismissed their usual faith in the people and respect for public protests as legitimate dissent; and they suddenly had little recollection of the courageous revolutionary furor that led to the founding of the nation—the very sentiment often used by liberals to justify their revolts against authority and tradition. By impugning a hidden racism to a movement that has nothing to do with race, they completely ignored their usual pleas for a colorblind analysis. In nine minutes, all of these ballyhooed liberal ideals were overthrown in the very name of an incoherent, contradictory liberalism.
And it is precisely because of shocking moments like these that there is ever-growing anger, rebellion and mistrust of liberal elites across the nation. Mr. Matthews and Mr. Maher little understand how they fuel the very movement they despise.
-Dr. Grace Vuoto is the Executive Director of The Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal.
