Posted by
Neotrotsky on Saturday, July 19, 2008 10:13:52 PM
The recent media furor over Rev Jesse Jackson’s use of the infamous “N” word has brought about much discussion but most of it missed the bigger issues at play. Namely, the dependence of the left on symbolism over substance and logic when it comes to most political arguments. In fairness, all political groups use symbolism but nowhere near the addiction levels of the left. For example people will argue you can not use this word unless you are from that group. Why ? Are they somehow more entitled? Are we not a country of free thought and ideas ? It is valid to say it may be more hurtful from someone outside your group using it; but, to argue that no one else but you can use it, is not valid or consistent under our traditional system of free thoughts and equity under the law. Then again most liberal arguments take this stand . For example, in all most any discussion you watch on TV or hear on the radio involving a black liberal, the argument “you are not black so you can‘t say” or one of its derivatives will invariably be made at some point in the discussion . At best this is an ad hominem emotional argument for it presupposes that for not being whatever, you are unable to have a valid argument about the topic. Validity of an argument is not dependant upon one’s skin color.
Of course, why is it that the left has put themselves into such a state? Because liberalism is based on flawed principles and since they have few if any true economic or social successes, they must appeal to ones' emotional being rather than their logical being- “It’s for the children”; “We must show people we care”; “We want to help you” etc. Which also explains the constant pitting of one group against another to really get the emotions going- rich vs. poor; black vs. white etc. Of course, they should get credit for staying true to leftist form. From the early days of Vladimir Lenin right up to this years Democratic convention, we will hear the same political talk of “protecting the people”. I suppose one social success the liberals can try to claim is the level of social taboo on the “N” word. I won’t even write it for fear of some type of reprisal. Indeed, pejoratives for other groups come no where close. When Ann Landers referred to the Pope as a
Pollack I don’t recall any paper referring to it as the “P” word or for that matter when Rev. Jesse Jackson referred to New York city as “
Hymietown.”, no one spoke of the “H” word. Being from one of these two groups, I feel slighted. Is my group not worthy of the single letter description ?