Help! I’m Surrounded by Intolerant Liberals at Work: A Guide for the Perplexed and the Outnumbered
Dear Belladonna Rogers,
How do you behave or talk in a workplace of liberals who monitor every behavior for political and social correctness?
While my colleagues are hard-working, the general setting of my workplace is extraordinarily liberal. It is expected that you will be just as liberal as the socialist working next to you. Worse: in 2008 we had meetings where the managers talked openly about who had donated to Obama’s campaign. They regularly went online to see who had — and who had not. The head of the company — loyal and generous Obama supporter that he was — did nothing to discourage this outrageous behavior and so, in 2007, I began to feel as if I were living in the People’s Republic of China. I still feel that way, now more than ever. I’ve never said a thing about my conservative views, but believe me, it isn’t easy.
What should I do?
Sleepless in Seattle
Dear Sleepless,
This is a serious problem and one that particularly afflicts those who work in academic settings, in the media, and in the entertainment industry. It’s also likely to affect any conservative or libertarian working in a blue state. I’ll give you my advice on your best options for dealing with this, but first I’ll say why the situation you’ve described has become a widespread phenomenon in workplaces across the country.
The problem you’ve described stems from a convergence of four factors that are far more prevalent today than at any time in the past seven decades, possibly since the Civil War (although I can’t speak personally of that era: I don’t go back that far).
They are (1) the increasingly high concentration of liberals in certain sectors of the economy; (2) the militant intolerance displayed by liberals; (3) the steep decline in civility everywhere, including the workplace; and (4) the lowering of barriers to discussions of topics that were, in the not-so-distant past, deemed off-limits, especially in the workplace, but even at social gatherings in general: politics, sex, one’s earnings, and one’s religious beliefs. This is a toxic confluence of trends that afflicts our professional and social lives and results in a less tolerant environment in which one’s “zone of privacy” is far narrower than ever before.
(1) Types of work that attract more liberals than conservatives:
Your email address tells me that you work in a university. I’ve long wondered why academia is so strongly skewed toward liberals (by some estimates 90% liberal versus 10% conservative, except at explicitly Christian universities and colleges). Last week, I heard an explanation that rings true. It comes from Tim Groseclose, professor of American politics at the University of California at Los Angeles, who explained, in a fascinating interview with The Daily Caller’s Jamie Weinstein, that liberals want to direct the lives of others whereas conservatives don’t. A person whose goal is to direct the lives of others, according to Professor Groseclose, will be drawn to academia, the media and the entertainment industry, the last of which — at least as much as teaching and the media — has an enormous impact on how and what people think. A single film can powerfully shape opinions and points of view, and epitomize an entire era.
Conservatives tend to be less interested in proselytizing and prefer to be guided by the maxim “live and let live,” as they focus their lives on family and work. They favor less government intrusion and prefer to be left alone. Liberals, particularly in academia, he said, are willing to forgo higher incomes for the chance to have a direct impact on the lives of others.
Furthermore, Professor Groseclose added, once an overwhelming liberal majority takes over a particular occupation or individual workplace, it becomes increasingly uncomfortable to be the sole conservative, or one of a small minority, amid a sometimes belligerent, often nastily self-righteous majority. So conservatives begin leaving these environments, which they find increasingly hostile and intolerant of them and their views. (To see the full interview click here.)
Two memoirs offer personal insights into this phenomenon in the entertainment industry, the first of which I’ve read and recommend highly. Turning Right at Hollywood and Vine: The Perils of Coming Out Conservative in Tinseltown by PJMedia’s Roger L. Simon, novelist and Academy Award-nominated screenwriter; and The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture by playwright and screenwriter David Mamet.
In an economy as dire as ours, few employees, no matter how uncomfortable they are in their present workplaces, feel free to leave a secure position in hopes of finding more congenial colleagues elsewhere, especially if they live in a blue state or work in a sector of the economy in which liberals predominate.
Even if the economy were more robust than it is, if you work in any of the sectors that attract liberals in droves, or if you work in deep blue America, changing jobs is unlikely to help. It will change the names and faces of your colleagues, but not the underlying problem.
(2) The fact that you’re the lone conservative in a department or office of liberal Democrats would not be the problem you describe if liberals were more tolerant — or indeed, if they were tolerant at all — of other political perspectives. As I’ve discussed here and here, the current incarnation of the Democratic Party is not the big, welcoming tent it was in the days of FDR. Today, it represents big unions, including the strident teachers’ unions, academia, some minority groups, and social and political liberals.
In the wake of the budget deal, we’ve seen a dramatic rise in vitriolic Democrat attacks on the Tea Party, and by extension, on the Republican Party of which they form an influential part. Rather than merely express contrary views, the Democrats at the highest levels of the party have turned up their attacks on a scale of 1 to 10, to at least 11, thus deepening the already sharp schism between the two parties.
As PJMedia’s Bryan Preston noted last Friday, Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass), a former nominee for the presidency, explicitly called on the nation’s media to refrain from reporting and broadcasting the views of members of the Tea Party — at all. John F. Kerry said,
And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. [Let’s hear it for good manners as we descend ever further into the netherworld of extreme intolerance.] The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.
Presumably, Sen. Kerry’s idea of an “absurd notion” is one with which he disagrees, while his definition of “everybody” is the fellow members of his windsurfing club.
This arrogance, this hubris, and this unembarrassed sense of entitlement are relatively recent additions to the traditional arrows in the Democrats’ quivers. Unlike in the past, actual political positions are secondary to extreme expressions of political passion. Vitriol overwhelms content.
“… that liberals want to direct the lives of others whereas conservatives don’t.”
Why do you americans call them liberals? Or why do they call themselves liberal?
That is the exact opposite of being liberal!!!
There’s a terminology gulf betwen the United States and the rest of the First World, Muumi. Anywhere else, “liberal” still means “well disposed toward freedom and tolerance of others’ ways.” But American statists, derived from the so-called “Progressives” of the late 19th / early 20th Century, have literally hijacked the word, such that its dictionary meaning and its de facto meaning are now completely opposed.
This has caused me no end of problems in discussing politics with my friends from across the Atlantic. But recapturing the word “liberal” for its wholesome original meaning has, so far, proved to be beyond our powers. That’s one of the biggest reasons for the use of the clunky neologism “libertarian.”
Worse than that, our Main Stream Media, which is heavily inclined toward the Left, makes a habit of describing the totalitarians of other nations as “conservatives.” You can barely imagine the agita that gives us.
We have to re-claim the language. Half the problem is that the Left re-defines everything.
They’re marxists.
I prefer the term Leftist.
I prefer the term “Lieberal”
More than just labels need addressing here…
How about some basic facts.
The author quotes some “expert”:
“Liberals, particularly in academia, he said, are willing to forgo higher incomes for the chance to have a direct impact on the lives of others”
Teachers…forgo higher incomes?
The teachers in my district average $100k.
$100K for 9th grade algebra.
$100K for 3rd grade science.
$100K for gym class.
Salary of the tax slaves that pay them?
About the National Average, just under 50k
Forgo higher incomes?
In the education field?
Thats the whole reason they GOT into teaching….
Part time jobs,(180 days a year) with much better than full time pay.
(more than double what their providers earn).
Plus full no cost bennies, and lifetime retirements they dont contribute to.
Oh,yes, and strikes if they dont get their way.
Yeah, they “forgo” SO much…
@ The Root’83
Where is it you live, exactly, that elementary, middle school, and high school teachers can make 100k per year? The national average for high school teachers is ~53k per year with the bell curve terminating around 28k on the low end and around 72k on the high end; elementary and middle school teachers tend to make a bit less. Furthermore, about half of the teachers in the country have a master’s degree or a doctorate. These individuals usually get a fairly significant bonus that puts them in the top half of the bell curve, but if you look at the expected wages for individuals holding advanced degrees you’ll find that their income is at or (more often) below the average for their respective state.
I have not included citations as this information is readily available from a wide variety of sources.
Next time, perhaps you could do a little “due diligence” before posting blatant falsehoods.
I second Owen’s comment. Assuming that your numbers are true and not a ridiculous hyperbole, where do you live?
No falsehoods here Owen,
Just facts we Locals are faced with every year.
I generally do not post “personal” local information for obvious reasons..
However you can research:
Council Rock school district, Bucks County PA
Nashaminy school district, Bucks County PA
Bristol Borough school district, Bucks County PA.
Look them up, you will find:
C.R. went on strike around 2001-2002, after the .com bubble burst. One point of contention was their need for a “cash reimbursement” from the taxpayers to their devalued 401k’s which suffered soooooo terribly (as of ours didnt?) along with a 13% pay raise. This was in addition to the usual “step” raises they automatically get at 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 years of service.
With this formula, plus “annual” raises in the 7-9% range, a teacher can perform the exact same function, teaching the exact same class, and get a 20-25% pay increase depending on what year it is. If I got a Masters degree in Unicorns and Fairy Dust (like they do) I could NEVER increase my salary unless I got a MAJOR increase in responsibilities. Thats how the REAL WORLD works, Owen. Teachers dont live there.
The Teachers Union is Despicable. Nashaminy was in contract negotiations this year. Among the many “stunts” they pulled, like scheduling, then NOT ATTENDING parent teacher conferences (that I took a vacation day to attend) as well as abandoning parents on “back to school night”, was the removal of all artwork projects and decorations from all the classrooms and bulletin boards, as that was “beyond contract” and they needed to show how much “extra” work they do.
The PARENTS are at WORK during a school day, so we cant SEE this dramatic effect…the visual/emotional impression was on THE CHILDREN, who cry because suddenly their school looks like a prison, and they wonder what they did wrong.
Nice huh?
Also, via Union Decree, no Letters of Recomendation were to be written for students UNLESS their parents were employees of the District, ….Thats right, openly screw the local kids college aspirations, but hook up the Union members kids.
Despicable behavior, any way you slice it…
Bristol Borough (smallest district in the state) just hired a new Superintendant. 130K a year, with a car, and a $2000 “commuting expense” as he and his family will live in trendy Bayla Cynwood, 45 minutes away. Cant expect him to live anywhere NEAR the modest blue collar town he works for, can we? Plus he gets 3 weeks of paid vacation (hint: you have 3 MONTHS of vacation from June to Sept).
See the Bucks County Courior Times over the last 10 years for all of this outrageousness, as well as Teachers Union president quotes such as:
1) Over taxed seniors should get home equity loans to pay school taxes, since they “still have so much equity” and rates are still low.
2) Both parents need to work to afford living in Bucks County, we think we can “outlast” them in a strike, as one parent must stay home with kids (and lose money), while the teachers are getting paid while striking.
3) Its not the TEACHERS fault the parents cant keep up with the economy, the TEACHERS souldnt shouldnt suffer a loss in their standard of living because of the economy.
Look it up, its out there.
Talk to some locals. Read the papers.
Pay attention.
Your simple ignorance of local issues does not make them “false”.
Sorry, I was wrong…Forgive me.
The AVERAGE salary of a Council Rock school teacher is its only $93,000.
Its true, some are at a mere $75,00.
Others at a more reasonable $135,000
These are TEACHERS, not superintendents, prinicpals, or district managers.
Just TEACHERS.
We abused locals tend to exaggerate,
and call all of them “100k assholes”
Just guessing, but a community which pays that kind of wages to teachers probably has a higher average salary per household that $53,000. More likely double that. And most households already ARE two-income.
Owen, most teachers on Long Island make six figures. You can check teacher salaries online at Newsday.com. I sympathize with you that it defies belief, but don’t jump the gun and accuse people of lying. Yes, New Yorkers earn more money than other parts of the country, but that is all taken back in the form of property taxes that are well into the five figure range for most average-sized homes.
After a quick web search I found that the Bucks Co. Median household income is around 75k, 50 percent higher than average for the US but probably not that much higher than the rest of the Atlantic metro corridor up there.
So what? Should teacher salaries be tied to area median incomes? I could go for that. I doubt the unions would.
There is no hope of getting the words back once the totalitarians grasp onto them. Just like no sane person can ever again wear a (originally perfectly harmless) swastika, words like “liberal”, “racist”, “marriage” and “gay” will never regain their true meanings.
And on down the slippery slope we go… How can you possibly speak in these kinds of gross generalizations? There are individuals on both poles of the American sociopolitical spectrum that would prefer to silence their opponents rather than conduct a reasonable conversation on the merits of their ideas. To suggest that this behavior is both uniform among and exclusive to liberals is the absolute height of absurdity. If you fear for your right to free speech, the security of your home, your financial future, your employment, or the freedom of your society, let it push you to better and more acute thinking to solve the problems before you. To accept this childish narrative of the “evil totalitarian liberals” versus the righteous and moral conservative is just plain ridiculous an does nothing to address your real problems; the world is not black and white and cannot be reduced to simple axioms.
And, for the record, I have no party affiliation and no love for our political system. I’m not the boogeyman trying to take away your voice, just a concerned citizen who has grown tired of listening to the paranoid idiocy reverberating from this digital echo chamber.
“I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” -Voltaire
I think it is easily verifiable that the Left is anything but “liberal” and wants to suppress speech. Let’s make a little list: Speech codes, “hate” speech, Fairness Doctrine and the abusive political correctness movement. It’s not the wacky right wing pushing all that. The Left has always wanted to suppress speech because they want to suppress freedom. That is not debatable. It’s part of their advertised “progressive” political philosophy.
Why else would they and their media sycophants engage in a continuous slur of the TEA party movement from it’s inception with unproven accusations of racism, stupidity, AstroTurfing and now economic terrorism? They do that to stifle freedom of speech and shut down debate. Why do they engage in endless character assassinations against conservatives? They do that because they can’t debate the issues and so want to shut down debate.
The Left calls for civility and calls conservatives racists, whores and terrorists. The Left calls for choice but passes laws that invade every part of our lives. The Left calls for science but name calls anyone who wants to debate any of their pet social, economic or environmental assumptions. The Left calls for tolerance but tolerates no disagreement and sends out mobs to shut down speeches and events featuring conservatives. Have conservatives EVER shouted down a Leftist speaker? Once? Twice, in your life time?
I am not a Christian but I know quite a few fundamentalists of different denominations. None have ever expressed any sentiment nearly as vicious or dictatorial as can be heard multiple times daily on MSNBC or read in the Daily Kos.
The Left has been and is still sympathetic with every totalitarian movement and leader from Lenin to Stalin to Mao to Pol Pot to Castro to Chavez and on and on. Why is it any surprise that they would emulate some of the methods of these sociopaths, like trying to stop free speech?
I work in Boston as a lawyer temp, usually along with a smaller or greater number of other lawyers. The leftists among them, if not predominant in numbers, are at least predominant in noise made. I told a friend of mine that I feel like the last human standing at the end of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” — watching myself for the one wrong word which will have them all pointing and screaming like Donald Sutherland at the end of that movie! Speaking of which, gotta go catch the bus for another day among the Pod People
I think psychodad makes an important point. Liberals enjoy an influence out of proportion to their actual number BECAUSE they are willing to attack with a level of viciousness that one only sees from those who, in their hearts, know they are wrong and outnumbered. Most folks (the fellow asking the question among them) do not want to live a life of confrontation. Liberals know they will lose their control over the rest of us unless they cow the majority into submission. And like all nasty things, they only get worse in a group. Think of that scene from “1984″ where the crowd strives to out do each other shouting invectives at the “peoples’ enemies”. Does you have difficulty imagining any liberal pundit or party hack doing the same thing?
Liberals enjoy an influence out of proportion to their actual number BECAUSE they are willing to attack with a level of viciousness that one only sees from those who, in their hearts, know they are wrong and outnumbered.
This is also true of the far right. Most republicans are moderate, but the far right bible beating christians (i.e. PJM readers, by and large) are noisy beyond their actual numbers thus leading GOP leadership to assume a largish far right “base” of “conservatives” that in reality doesn’t exist outside some regional enclaves. (These regional echo chambers are the antipodal opposites of those of the left in places like San Francisco.) Since far right social conservatives are also easily targeted caricatures the leftist media also uses this to their advantage painting ALL republicans thusly. Frankly this is no different than the typical far right believer’s assertion that a moderate fiscal conservative democrat is a eco-nazi job killing commie (moderate democrats don’t buy into “green” crap any more than moderate republicans do.)
B. Rogers — “… that liberals want to direct the lives of others whereas conservatives don’t.”
Rubbish. Far right types seek to enforce the notion that women are mere walking incubators with their pogroms re abortion.
In reality there are two types of people — those who seek to control others and those who do not — and these are equally distributed in both political parties. The difference lies solely in what they seek to control and how this is attained.
“but the far right bible beating christians
(i.e. PJM readers, by and large.)”
generalize much?
“pogroms re abortion”?
So, where in the US is abortion not to be found? Where is it not flourishing?
I agree, the more people (on the far Right, perhaps) point out that, when you come right down to it, abortion really does interfere with a human life, the harder it is to stick with the view so many of us cheerfully took on in the Seventies, that women couldn’t live their modern lives without abortion. So, the developing human life be damned… we have more important things to do, with our lives!
Are you still OK with that?
generalize much?
No, not really. I observe this site here and there and rarely fail to see a thread not filled with biblical scripture references followed by knowing dittoes. This is where I tell you that stereotypes become such for a reason. The stereotypical PJM reader is a far right christian and not representative of the republican voter as a whole.
The last time Ms Rogers wrote herein she supported gay marriage to howls of derision from those imagining themselves as morally superior.
This thread illustrates the truism that far right christians and leftists disagree not in concept (people need to be told what to do by their superiors) but in detail only. The far right would love to see abortion again outlawed, which is the very picture of telling others what to do in a manner that would make any self respecting communist blush with envy — the authority for this is claimed to come from none other than your deity, the creator of the universe.
Are you still OK with that?
Thanks for illustrating my point so well. I’m sure you can imagine lots of reasons, valid and otherwise, for telling others what they can do. And I’m also sure that the ones you will assert are the most convincing are those ostensibly representing the will of the creator of the universe, as if you morons have a direct and exclusive link. Heh. It’s no wonder how Prada et al trade on an aura of exclusivity; all too many humans seem wired for it. Only 200,000 humans will survive the fundamentalist’s rapture. Be a part of an exclusive club. Only the rich endowed with sophisticated and discriminating tastes can and will purchase a $4500 Prada handbag. Be a part of an exclusive club. Do you see a theme developing here yet?
As of this posting, there were 23 threads, 51 total comments, not including mine. Not a single mention of religion, yet. You may be an engineer, but don’t do your homework. I have seen mention of religion on other subjects, and quickly move on. And it’s not so frequent that you can make such general comments. As an engineer you should do more statistical analysis. I am not religious, nor do I care about abortion. But I certainly do not Christian-bash. To each his own.
I work in engineering and there are few things more untrustworthy than the liberal engineer. Most don’t believe what they themselves are saying, but are just trying to show how smart they are (they were the smartest kid in their family so think they are smarter than everyone else). The argument presented here is the typical leftist/arab (they argue exactly the same way) method of equivocating everything wether it is relevant or not, not to mention positing sweeping generalizations as truth ( a of couple religious people post often therefore all PJM readers are religious zealots)? A ten year old can see the logic gap there.
Flame away “engineer”. I don’t return to read comments on comments.
“moderate democrats don’t buy into “green” crap any more than moderate republicans do.
Yeah, but their leadership does, and thats what gets “enforced” top down…
no matter what the so-called Moderate Dems say.
What the heck is a “moderate democrat” Nancy Pelosi leads the party?
“Far right types seek to enforce the notion that women are mere walking incubators with their pogroms re abortion.
Actually, far right types have a simple moral compass.
Something basic that tells them right from wrong.
A bit of the common Christian “holy SHIT that could have been ME” sense of dread when they see the casual acceptance of gruesome late term abortions gleefuly used without restriction as simple birth control.
Its called the Golden Rule, treat others as you wish to be treated
Sorry but, when I was a fetus, I say that was “me”, and not “mom”.
See how simple “100% sovereignty of MY body” is?
“with rights, come responsibilities”
is the creed of the right.
“shut up and relieve me of all consequence”
is the creed of the left.
I used to believe that there were such things as moderate Democrats until about six years ago when I found myself in the same social circle with a local politician who likes to paint herself as a moderate, but is in reality pretty far left. One of the things I realized about most of her friends, acquaintances and close political supporters and allies is that compared to them she did seem almost moderate–these folks were extremely far left. At that point, I realized that I had seen the contemporary Democrat party and that there was no room for what I would consider a moderate in that party anymore.
And when the Democrats nominated Obama in 2008, I felt that my observations had all been confirmed quite clearly. Anyone willing to label themselves as a Democrat in the age of Obama is not moderate in any sense at all.
randomengineer, I wish you’d read more carefully and comment more carefully. You write:
“B. Rogers — ‘… that liberals want to direct the lives of others whereas conservatives don’t.’
Rubbish. Far right types seek to enforce the notion that women are mere walking incubators with their pogroms re abortion.”
Putting aside your views on abortion, in point of fact, “B. Rogers” did not state that it was her own view that “liberals want to direct the lives of others…” What she clearly did was to cite an interview (which she linked to, and which I watched, while you may not have) and states that Professor Groseclose, after making statistical studies of liberals and conservatives, came to that conclusion. Here is what she wrote (see below). Also, calling a blogger’s citation of a scholar’s research “rubbish” is hardly a civilized response, or pleasant for other readers to read. A good argument is one thing. Mud- (or “rubbish”-) slinging is quite another. It brings this entire exchange down to the level of the sandbox.
This is a direct quote from the advice column:
“It comes from Tim Groseclose, professor of American politics at the University of California at Los Angeles, who explained, in a fascinating interview with The Daily Caller’s Jamie Weinstein, that liberals want to direct the lives of others whereas conservatives don’t. A person whose goal is to direct the lives of others, according to Professor Groseclose, will be drawn to academia, the media and the entertainment industry…”
I ove Donald Sutherland as much as the next guy but for my money, the 1956 original Invasion of the Body Snatchers was a much better film. More tension, subtle rather than overt, and stays with you for decades. I highly recommend it.
“Try to make the issue not the other person’s views versus yours, but rather the virtue of tolerance for a variety of approaches — not whose view is correct. ”
But that’s exactly the problem. To most–by no means all–liberals, politics is a display of moral virtue and (self-)righteousness. Politics to liberals is an expression of one’s personality and goodness; therefore to attack the policy is to attack the person.
That is why you have to appeal to their personality to blow their mind.
When I have the unfortunate occasion to speak politics with liberals in Seattle I will describe myself as being a rebel against the man. They will nod their head approvingly until I say, “That is why I am a conservative.” Blink. Blink. Blink go their eyelids.
You see the liberals in Seattle think of themselves as rebels but how can you be a rebel when your party has controlled the city and the state for a generation?
It takes a while for the concept to sink in. It is not easy for them to understand that their self image isn’t what they think it is but it is fun to blow their minds and crush their inner stereotype.
“As Commentary’s luminous Jonathan S. Tobin wrote at the Contentions blog, “Indeed, with the abuse escalating to a point where liberals now feel no shame about accusing Tea Partiers of being ‘terrorists,’” it is unsurprising that the group’s negative polling numbers have risen.”
Don’t you believe it. I don’t put much faith in poles. Never have. Poles today are mostly advertisements and headlines for the Democratic Party. Prior to the 1980 election, poles said that Reagan and Carter were almost even. We all saw how that turned out.
Poles do not measure the anger, real anger, that is out there in America with this president and the Democrats. Evidently, Obama and his minions learned nothing from the 2010 elections. Obama’s pathetic economic policies have nothing to do with the mess we’re in, it’s those “evil” people with the lawn chairs and signs. They’re the ones to blame.
Well, go ahead, keep on insulting the Tea Parties. Keep making fun of them, keep slandering them, and keep on demonizing them. Democrats love to attack people who can’t respond in the main stream media. That will only make us stronger and it will only bring more people to our cause. It will also make us work harder to elect a conservative to the White House. Count on it. And with 2012 coming up real fast, you are going too see how powerful we are. Obama had better start looking for a new day job, and fast.
What have you got against people from Poland?
Read carefully, these ‘poles’ may be the slippery kind.
I’ve heard quite a bit about dancing with people from Poland; it seems to be especially popular in college dorms and strip clubs…
Not only didn’t the democrats learn anything from the 2010 election results, neither did the entrenched republican power structure.
Dear Sleepless:
I feel your pain. Really. I work for an academic institution that worships our current president, even gave him one of his first honorary degrees. What to do when people in the work place go on and on about The One?
Offer that everyone has a favorite president, whether it is Bill Clinton, FDR, or Abraham Lincoln. If you don’t like the person, you may want to name Reagan or Dubya. Even Carter. If this provokes a rant–liberals often have hair-triggered tempers (bluenecks?)–tell them you were joking. Play both sides, we’ve all certainly improved our skills at deception watching this President.
Get more Republican friends. Add some Independents. Who wants to be surrounded by people who think exactly alike? OK, academics who prattle on about diversity, but since that’s not why you wrote in, let’s not address that inconsistency today.
At work, we get paid to get along. Not to agree on everything, or to share everything. If getting along with the Obamaphiles means you nod your head and ask if they saw Maureen Dowd’s latest column, do it. Do it with all the charm and wit you possess. To maintain your balance, check in with PJM daily. Watch Fox News. Read the WSJ. Check out realclearpolitics. And realize this love affair with OweBama will end at some point, he’ll soon be replaced by the next superstar promoter of liberal BS. Oh, I meant dreams. Liberal dreams.
“bluenecks”
I love it (rofl). Let’s make that the word of the day for the next year or so.
OweBama–brilliant! Thank you! I’ll tell everyone I don’t work with (at a school) but am friends with!
I can’t take credit for OweBama, saw it here first on PJM. Just trying to help popularize it.
“Social justice”… it’s just not intolerable fascist tyranny when left/liberals do it, you know.
I left the Democratic Party after 40 years because of the sexism toward Hillary Clinton and then toward Palin coming from the left. Many others did the same thing for the same reason—we suspect it was around 1 million people. I’m now an Independent, and I’ve had this new perch from which to observe the behavior that this author describes. It shocks me, and I ask myself often “was I that way?” I think that this tribal behavior has worsened immeasurably in recent years. There is zero tolerance for different ideas, and if you dare to stand up with a different idea, you are shunned as if you were an apostate. I have found that the right will at least give you a modicum of respect for expressing a different view—–after all this is America, the land of free speech. The left is even worse when it comes to what sexism is, and ironically, the right is much more tolerant of women’s rights as a result. Again, it’s because the left thinks it owns the women’s rights agenda. If you bring up any idea that doesn’t fit what they believe, they attack you with a nuclear bomb. If you’re not in lockstep with them, you are not afforded any intellectual freedom at all. From at least that perspective, you can read more here. Although you’ll have to spend a little time reading, you’ll see that same thing discussed in this article. I’m grateful to this author for writing so well on this subject!!
http://womenwintoo.blogspot.com/2011/07/running-up-against-brick-wall-sexism-of.html
Much thanks for sharing the excellent “women win too” article.
From personal experience, I strongly advise not revealing one’s own political persuasion in a workplace where most, if not all, of one’s colleagues disagree.
If you do, you will probably lose your job, and you may find it extremely difficult to get another one.
You are dealing with people who have gone over to the dark side. Within their limited workplace environment, they are holding all of the cards – for the time being. That said, the college tuition bubble is in the process of bursting, and that may not be the case for long.
Just drank a toast to freedom with our last stocked 2% milk at our hospital. Yup they are banning it….how far we have fallen..and how quickly (first smokers then regular pop, machines only stocked w/oats and bran, now 2% milk, only 1% and skim allowed). God save us from these ‘do-gooders’ puuuhleeeeease! When Obamacare kicks in this will be national.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. A friend of mine teaches at a college and let slip that she opposed His “O”lliness in the election. A red faced co-worker immediately called her an anti-Semite. . . never-mind the fact that she is Jewish!
This is God’s game and it is the battle between good and evil. We are already in the days foretold where good is evil and evil is good. Just look at the world – there is hardly a place where strife isn’t rampant. Choose your side wisely.
If ever it felt like the ‘end times’ this would be it.
I think toilet paper and canned goods are going to be more valuable than ‘gold’. lol
Gee, I’m definitely not the one to dispense advice on this matter. While employed at a university, I casually mentioned that if it weren’t for Roe v. Wade and the overall higher rates of abortion among liberals, the vote count in Florida would’ve gone to Kerry in 2004. And Bush wouldn’t have been elected President. That didn’t go over well.
But since they were trying to recruit me to stay on staff, there wasn’t much they could do about my views. In the end, I think we all got along well. I learned there are liberals with a sense of humor, and they learned there are Republicans who recycle. But I don’t really think I could have made a career out of academia, ultimately, I think I would have hit the glass ceiling above which only liberals can rise.
“When Obamacare kicks in this will be national.”
IF it ever kicks in, patroness. Hope springs eternal!
I know you want to have a conversation with your colleagues that involves the words ” I.like.anything…” As they are desperate liberals, I strongly suggest that even if you said ” I like fish” they would not be interested. When faced with that much self- centered obliviousness, you want to respond like a classic corporate wife : ask a question, listen intently, and then ask a follow up question. If you don’t like the direction of an answer, ignore that direction, and ask a question in a different vector. The key is the not- responding, and then channelling. Do it enough, be interested enough, and compassionate and enthusiastic enough about their positive traits, they won’t notice your traits, or dislike you. Be positive- I love how enthusiastic and committed you are about politics! is not an endorsement of their policies. It’s an endorsement of them.
It’s the strategy of the weak and dependent, according to people who only chart obvious power. However, these relations are only as strong as the questioner/listener weak person allows. Or, in liberal speak, the bottom or the masochist or the slave control the relationship.
I live by this, as I live in a liberal town, and work amongst committed liberals. I’ve had them tell me to my face that ‘Suburban Republicans are the worst people in the world!” Um, hello. I’m a suburban Republican. Or ” I won’t vote for that guy- he went to college wearing underwear his mama sewed! The world is more cosmopolitan and bigger than that!” and rather than saying ” you classist jerk!” I said ” I love how resourceful and skilled his mother was.” That would be Rick Perry, in mama- made underwear.
I left out that my husband goes to work in underwear I sew for him, and my sons, too. Jalie.com is the Canadian pattern company that sells the pattern for JCrew style boxers, btw. Not an American company, which is sad. American pattern companies sell pajama patterns, and Western Shirt patterns for men. So, there are manly, strong rodeo guys wearing shirts their mama made, too.
And, well, discretion and good taste are skills worth developing. Asking to focus on projects, smiling and saying ” you know, friday night isn’t here yet, – can we talk about the budget projection?” gives you that buttoned- up frisson that makes some people want to unwrap the mystery of you on the weekend, in a good way. it’s a good skill, in general.
Excellent; I will link to this from my Old Jarhead blog. But “Intolerant liberals” is redundant, in most cases.
Robert A. Hall
Author: The Coming Collapse of the American Republic
(All royalties go to a charity to help wounded veterans)
The far-left has a long sad history of folks who smear and slogan-shout and cherry-pick … to protect ideology and state fascism and waste.
And far-right too has a long sad history of folks who smear and slogan-shout and cherry-pick … to protect ideology and racism and corrupt profits.
That is why pretty much every American citizen nowadays is sure to encounter smearing and slogan-shouting and willful ignorance … coming equally from the far-left *AND* the far-right.
It’s best not to reply in kind, but instead to quietly assert facts-and-history … after all, even the most vituperative and willfully ignorant abuse causes no lasting personal harm!
With regard to history, both conservative and liberal historians agree on the three greatest Republican presidents: Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower. And both conservative and liberal historians agree also on the three greatest Democratic Presidents: Franklin Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, and Harry Truman. And historians of every persuasion (and Supreme Court justices of every persuasion too) agree also on the fundamental principles of American republican democracy … as set forth in the essays of The Federalist.
It is notable too that all seven sources (the six great Presidents, and the checks-and-balances political philosophy of The Federalist) were immensely respectful of reason and science … and none were dogmatically religious or driven by ideology-first politics. This respect for reason-and-science is utterly absent from today’s ideology-first far-right and far-left politics.
If you back your opinions with reference to these seven great American sources, quietly emphasizing history, reason, and science rather than factional passion, then your ideology-first co-workers will respond with a perfect storm of abuse … abuse that will come equally from far-right and far-left co-workers … and yet, you will find too that the majority of your co-workers agree with you … because a solid majority of Americans are tired of ideology-first politics, and a solid majority of Americans are fed-up with ideology-driven smears and willful ignorance.
Those brands of far-right conservatism, and those brands of far-left liberalism, that rely on smearing and slogan-shouting and willful ignorance … neither will long endure … and neither deserves to endure. The more quickly they fade away, the better for our nation and the planet.
Is your name Bill O’Reilly? He is always quick to say, in cases of leftwing smear tactics, the right does it too. I am a senior citizen and in all my years I have yet to meet or hear a right wing conservative who is vicious and lies like a leftist. Maybe it is because I live in the SF Bay Area filled with lefties. This morning’s local news announced that Governor Brown, another faithful of the left, has signed a bill or letter requesting the elimination of the electoral system in a presidential election. This of course will assure that there will never be another president of a more conservative persuasion, as the smaller conservative populations in the middle of the country will be drowned out by the left wing masses on both coasts. So forgive me if I don’t hold the same optimism as you do by expecting the extremists to fade away. BTW I disagree with your opinion that FDR was a great president. The population was so beaten down that it fell for FDR’s smooth and persuasive hustling.
Your attempt to draw moral equivalence between the far left and the far right just doesn’t wash.
To begin with, just whom did you have in mind?
On the far left, there are self-described socialists like Bernie Sanders and out-and-out black racists like Cynthia McKinney. And don’t think he’s not a hero to even the liberals; I’m amazed how someone can post to Krugman’s blog that it’s time the entire capitalist system was smashed and get more “Recommended” votes than any other post.
Whom did you have in mind on the right who is anything like those? The Tea Party certainly isn’t. The neo-Nazis might be, but they are an infinitesimal group compared to the fans of Sanders and McKinney.
Secondly, the Left has one unique characteristic that only the original German Nazis shared (the modern neo-Nazis don’t seem to): Leftists believe that their ideology is not only desirable but inevitable. They see history as a sweeping morality play where their side always wins eventually.
The reason why the Left (even mainstream liberals, NOT just the “far” left) pours out such a flood of contempt and disgust with anyone who disagrees with them is that they regard such people as primitive savages doomed to lose to “enlightened” leftists, the champions of reason. You can also see plenty of posts on left-wing blogs describing the Tea Partiers as a “bunch of old people” who “fortunately won’t be here much longer.”
And that’s also why the Left is not interested in a civil, courteous debate with conservatives. Their attitude is: We’re going to win soon anyway, just like we always have, why bother debating with those who are doomed to lose.
Sinz54, I am not so pessimistic as you.
The six great presidents named in my post all were centrists … all are regarded as top-10 presidents by conservative and liberal historians alike … and most important of all, America prospered under all of their administrations.
Their election, and their success as leaders is evidence that American citizens need not fear the dominance of the far-left *or* the far-right. Good!
Agreed, “A physicist” is not a pessimist. Rather a happy-go-lucky fatalist / determinist, glad to defer to ‘consensus historians’ (rather than seeking the best) and promoting science-worship. There were plenty of great physicists working happily in Weimar Germany, quite assured that political extremism couldn’t affect anything that really mattered . . . right up until it was too late.
To the contrary, calculatus-eliminatus … the Nazis took great pains to purge those mathematicians, scientists, and engineers who were racially and/or politically undesirable:
The parallels with the present-day calls to eliminate the EPA are all too obvious — to mathematicians, scientists, and engineers. That’s why far-right ideologues can’t expect much support from them.
“Already Too Late” = 1933
(Weimar Germany, wherein the rise in political extremism occurred, PRECEDED Nazi Germany)
Any “Physicist” who refuses to see the authoritarian-totalitarian potential of the USA’s EPA has likely already crossed to the Dark Side.
FDR a centrist? Truly sir, if FDR is a centrist, which presidents would you consider to be left? As far as best presidents, I seem to sense a “no true Scotsman” argument here, as well as the over-used “appeal to authority.” Historians = academia = left orientation…could you cite a conservative historian or two who does not include Reagen in the top 5?
“A Physicist,” no pessimist, seems to have fled the building.
No doubt he’s safely back in his Lab / Office / Lecture Hall.
Recounting to his fellow rent-seekers how he confronted the ‘anti-science’ forces.
His world: “And historians of every persuasion . . . agree also on the fundamental principles of American republican democracy … as set forth in the essays of The Federalist.”
Back in the real world, my children are being taught from Zinn’s “A Peoples’ History of the USA”, who shows how there were no ‘fundamental principles,’ only advantage-seekers.
Perhaps one could turn the liberal tactics back on them. There is a phrase that is called “hostile work environment” and the liberals have forced companies and organizations to quiver at the thought of a lawsuit as related to creating a hostile work environment. If, through no fault of your own (and you have to be sure not to initiate or overreact and to document everything) you experience a hostile work environment talk to your HR person and ask if this is a problem. Mention that and sometimes the HR person will quickly talk to management to nip it. If they don’t, or if they encourage it, they will soon realize how much a lawsuit costs (though it will get you blacklisted more quickly than any communist sympathizer was in the 50s).
True story – I was engaged by the Chair of a department at a large state university to review and make recommendations about some compensation issues regarding faculty and staff. The engagement took about six months and required multiple visits to the department. At project kick-off the Chair asked that I attend a department staff meeting so that he could introduce me and explain to the staff why I would be around for the next few months.
At the conclusion of the meeting, as I was making small talk with people, one of the faculty I was speaking with offered me tickets to attend the talk being given by Al Gore on campus that evening. Now the truth is that I’d rather hit myself in the head with a hammer than listen to Al Gore, but as he’d asked about my interest in attending at the very last minute (Mr. Gore’s talk was only about 6 hours later), I begged off explaining I had other plans, which I truly did. This man grew somewhat sullen at my declining his magnanimous offer but didn’t say anything.
For the balance of my engagement, this man addressed me as “warmist” and constantly made inferences that I must believe in a flat Earth. All from my not dropping everything to go see Al Gore. I’ve known a lot of progressives over the years, but this was one of the more “unhinged” ones I’ve met.
And guess what? He’s a full tenured professor with a reputation as a leader in his field. That’s right – he’s teaching your children.
Isn’t THAT special?
what would happen if one were to not adopt the position of “conservatism” in a libified workplace but, on the contrary, try to channel the worst of the worst- in the vein of “why the worst necessarily rise to the top?”
steer the conversation into the realm of the worst that totalitarianism has to offer– something along the lines of– “I can’t wait until we get rid of those tea partiers and rubes that stand in our way because once they are gone then the real fun begins muwhahahaha…” then wait for the response
Two pieces of advice: don’t try to educate them -it’s a cult -they need deprogramming -not learning. The second is to bring Lysol with you, they tend to carry a lot of germs from their various and sundry social and political associations.
On the subject of liberalism in academia is not a new one nor does it occur in blue states only. Many years ago, I had an interview for the head position in the data processing department, now known as IT, with a small, liberal arts college in a small town in central North Carolina.
The small city where the college was located is in the heart of conservative country or was at one time. I was still working on my educational requirements and did not have a degree, much less a masters or doctorate. Although my resume’, qualifications, and IQ were equal to and in most instances, exceeded that of the academic staff, the dean of the college told me in what was a very honest and frank conversation, that although I was the most qualified of the 250 plus applicants, he would not offer me the position.
His reasons? He did not want me to be subjected to the elitist, liberal, and antagonist atmosphere I would be surrounded with each day because I did not have the necessary pedigree to be accepted or to work with the highly educated academics. He told me I would be insulted, denigrated, and ostracized every day by professors who felt superior to anyone who did not have the same degrees they have.
I asked him why I was interviewed or even considered and why would the college waste my time when they knew I would never be hired. He responded that he had to observe the rules and experience and credentials I had had to be interviewed. He was being kind, honest, and seemed to care about what the work environment would be for me. He also shared that my resume’ was the top one he reviewed and if circumstances were different, he would have offered me the job immediately.
It was a lesson I never forgot. Since then, when I encounter liberals who are condenscending, elitist, and for the most part, verbally vicious toward anyone they believe are “beneath” them, I stand my ground. My usual response is to tell them they have the right to their opinion and I have a right to mine. If they want to shout me down, go ahead with my blessing. It only demonstrates the lack of intelligence when shouting is replaced with a reasonable and civil debate. It further demonstrates the inability to connect to the world without using a verbal assault against those who don’t share the same world views.
My point to the small college story. This has been around for decades. It has just been brought to the surface in the last few years, especially to the general public. Most have never met a college or university academic face to face and don’t realize the extent of their contempt for the average citizen, especially conservatives.
I work in a town and profession that are heavily into politics, and liberals predominate. Many if not most of those people are quite intelligent and articulate. I’ve asked myself why are so many smart people so misguided as to embrace the lie that liberalism is (government will take care of you). The answer I’ve come up with is that many smart people are arrogant, and liberalism is the perfect home for such people because it embraces the notion that smart people can solve everyones’ problems with just the control of and revenue from them that is necessary to achieve the solutions that liberals embrace. Of course the trajectory of control and revenue is always upward, and the utopia sought is never achieved. Nevertheless, in this town, it is essential to pick your fights carefully, and remain civil. Otherwise the arrogant ones will identify you for ostracism and stifling.
Well, I have a suggestion. Go to work wearing a moo moo (preferably with a peace sign logo and the caption: psychedelics have more fun), covered in Patchouli oil (stinks like hell), sporting unshaved under arms and legs, and respond to any unsolicited life style opinion with the following witticisms: power to the people, tune in, turn on, and a free hookup. Welcome to the erogenous zone, all politics comes from the crotch. I’m sorry, did I do something to make you think I care? Of course, this would probably only work for earth mommas and other protected classifications in the public sector, unless you’re into cross dressing.
Leftism seems related to emotional maturity — or rather, the lack thereof. It’s a form of infantilism, in which people who haven’t fully grown up tend to view things in emotionally simple terms and feel empowered to “act out,” or throw tantrums, to get what they want. Like four-year-olds, they don’t want to know the mechanics of wealth creation; they just want what they want (e.g., “social justice,” a truly bad idea). This doesn’t mean they’re stupid; on the contrary, lefties often seem to have high IQs. But their emotional intelligence may be much lower. And I think you see this combination of smarts and immaturity in a lot of the areas where lefties predominate — academe, the media, government, environmentalism. (And how about Wall Street, which overwhelmingly supported O in ’08? Nah, that was cynical self-interest. There’s no one as cynical as a bond trader.)
None of the above really helps much in dealing with lefties in the workplace, though; you can’t really employ the techniques you’d use with a four-year-old when you’re dealing with a 48-year-old colleague or superior.
Not bringing up politics at work is excellent advice; however, when your co-workers want to “out” you so they can throw an auto da fe (proving their bona fides as good lefties via a sacrament), it’s really a tough situation. When people who voted for O aggressively get on your case about how stupid the Tea Partiers must be, it’s a high-blood-pressure moment for sure. Also basically a no-win situation for you.
I teach on a college campus and I am very lucky that most of the people in my department are either non-political or well-mannered in their liberalism. Then again I have never really had a political conversation with any of my colleagues except one fellow who, like me, is pretty conservative. Every time we speak however it’s like we’re in occupied France in 1943. We speak sotto voce with the door closed and never with a third-party present. We’re simply afraid that one of our well-mannered colleagues will find something objectionable and report us to one of the many campus offices set up to monitor “insensitive” behavior.
Everyone is very nice and I love my job but the fear that a person’s conservative political views can hurt you professionally is always in the back of our minds. (Particularly if you don’t have tenure.) In walking around campus I have seen faculty offices festooned with Obama posters, Obama images, Democratic slogans and “Friends Don’t Let Friends Vote Republican” bumper-stickers.(Very tiresome!)They flaunt their views without fear of reprisal or even finger-wagging from the authorities. I can’t imagine the response if I put up a “Palin in 2012″ poster but I am pretty sure I would regret it.
I know that there are conservatives and Republicans among our faculty but these people (figuratively at least) all fear the 2:00 A.M. knock on the door from the kampus SS if they express their views.
Being a musician puts me the midst of a group largely comprised of the most liberal of liberals. There isn’t one leftist daydream they don’t buy into. I’ve found that the best tactic to avoid getting caught up in their political discussions is to avoid them entirely by setting myself outside of the fray: “I hate politics and I hate politicians” is my standard line. Works every time.
Well, I don’t have deal with at work, but I have had to deal with them in many social situations. I used live in a town crawling with liberal BOBO types. When started with me, I would look them in eye and tell them to shut up and go away!
Just imagine if I had to depend on PJM readers for me to keep my job.
The idea that overall, conservatives are somehow more reasonable and better tempered than lefties is a reach. Both sides have elements that are sure that they are right, generally intolerant of dissent, virtually ALLERGIC to people with differing political views; it all depends on who is wielding the power and influence in a particular situation.
The difference though between liberals and conservatives is that liberals want to intervene in others lives and use their money (and borrowed money) to do so. Conservatives want to see the independence of the individual preserved. This is hugely important to the foundations for Americans’ strength and success, and strikes a clear line of demarcation between Ls and Cs.
Yes we all know that you are above the fray. Well good for you and keep that halo shiny.
I, too, am a conservative independent who works in academia. The political bigotry and intolerance that leftists display is astounding.
Certain administrators at my college will make irreverent jokes about any politician to the right of Chairman Mao at every single meeting–from departmental to college wide. Of course, the most ardent liberals in the audience always look around to see who’s not laughing hard enough at those jokes.
Stating that you have reservations about worshiping Che Guevara as a secular saint will get you on “the bad list,” as will offering up even the mildest protest against abortion on demand, gay marriage, gun control, or the extremely silly idea that the proles should actually be allowed to keep money they make while working for evil corporations.
And for God’s sake, don’t let anyone know that you shop at (gasp!) Wal-Mart.
The level of close-minded intolerance displayed daily by people who consider themselves to be the most sensitive, caring, educated, intelligent and tolerant people on earth would actually be quite amusing, if it weren’t so pathetic, and potentially ruinous to my career.
No, I don’t have tenure. And I’m not getting it either, at least not where I am now.
Some of what you’re describing is sheer toadyism.
Back in my university days, I had a part-time job on campus as a projectionist. On one occasion, I got a booking in the administration building. Since it had no classrooms and no courses were ever taught there, this was unusual. After I’d set up the film and projector, the audience came filing in and I recognized the President of the university from the campus paper and realized that the other dozen or so people were the deans of all of the faculties. The film I showed them was one which had been made on campus in early 70s by the students themselves and illustrated campus life, particularly extracurricular activities. It showed students in organized drinking contests and so forth.
As the film went on, I noticed that whenever a funny scene was taking place, all of the deans except one looked over at the President of the university to see if he was laughing; if he wasn’t, they immediately wiped the grins off their own faces. But one of the deans showed no such restraint and spent much of the film laughing uproariously. The President never so much as cracked a grin; he was one of the gloomiest Guses I’ve ever encountered.
That was my first encounter with such open toadyism. I was amazed that people who seemed like they must be immensely powerful like the deans would not even smile at scenes that were often hilarious without the approval of the dour President of the university.
And I can’t help but wonder what happened to the dean who actually dared to laugh without permission. I suspect his career took a nose-dive as a result of his independent attitude although I actually hope he eclipsed the lot of them.
I wonder how much the intolerance of the right described by you and other commenters on this article is not actually hatred of the right but just hatred of ANY form of dissent. Sometimes it seems like just being unorthodox is enough to run afoul of the leaders.
It would be interesting to see how people reacted if you took a position that was further Left than theirs: would you still be shunned? For example, if you said Stalin or Mao had the right idea when they murdered the people who resisted the Communist Party, would they regard you favourably or would that put you beyond the Pale?
I go with the theory that there is an underlying emotional disorder at play here. The liberal mindset is driven by the singular self-absorbed conviction of the absolute “rightness” of whatever feeling they’re having at the time. Has nothing to do with logic, common sense, or anything else a normal person experiences. It’s all about this self-justifying sense of correctness that takes precedence over all else. And it creates a psychic tension in them that manifests as an overwhelming desire to instruct, compel, legislate, coerce, force, all in their paths to understand their “better” way and naturally fall in line with the “enlightened” thought process. We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. This is not a political philosophy. This is an illness in search of a 12-step program.
“This is not a political philosophy. This is an illness in search of a 12-step program.”
That is so hilarious. I am stealing it and without attribution! So there.
I’ve heard various explanations for Leftism. There are, of course, degrees. The well-meaning neighbor who wants the unemployed or elderly to have a safety net is harmless, mostly. The committed academic ideologue is not harmless.
Evan Sayet has his: http://youtu.be/eaE98w1KZ-c Thomas Sowell has his: “Conflict of Visions” book. Ann Coulter has her new book: Demonic. All attempt to explain the Leftist pathology. But this article gave another persuasive explanation. A friend of mine recently told me, “It’s simple. Conservatives like people. Liberals hate people and don’t trust them. That’s why they put the ‘Earth First’ and pass law after law after law.”
Well put.
There is relief for the besieged conservative, but it not without risk. If the boss creates a workplace hostile to conservatives they risk being on the wrong side of a potentially destructive lawsuit. Especially if any of the conversation is negative about Christians, then a conservative’s rights as defined in the 1964 civil rights act can be construed as being violated.
one small problem
it is the aclu which “defines” the 1964 civil rights act and name the “victims”
The best example of liberal hubris and closemindedness I’ve ever encountered follows: A few years ago I was over in Istanbul at the American Research Institute in Turkey. The other half-dozen or so academics there took very opportunity to spice any conversation with knowing, smug insults of conservatives and Christians in general and Bush in particular. I held my tongue for a few days, then finally when having tea (how appropriate, come to think of it)one day I returned fire: “I am conservative and voted for Bush–twice.” The others mouths dropped open, their eyes widened and one of them said–I kid you not–”I thought you said you had a PhD?!”
Need I say more?
Grammatical apology: that should be “others’,” not “others.”
Hey Random Engineer,
So far, not a single Biblical citation in any post on this article. How’s that statistical analysis working for you?
Muumi is so right. the word LIBERAL as it is used in politics today has wandered far from its sound and noble base. Those who number themselves among the liberal are not liberal at all. They are arrogant, snobbish, and assume not only that they are right about everything, but that YOU are wrong. I could go on and on. But I am not getting paid by the word either. But the fact that these narrow minded arrogant bigots have stolen this word makes me angry. I am not similarly angered by the theft of “GAY,” but saddened, as I read 100 year old literature, that we no longer have this effective word in our arsenal.
“That is, in fact, one of the hallmarks of democracy: the rights of minorities are as fully protected as those of the majority.”
Actually, that’s not the case.
In a Democracy, the majority has unlimited power over the minority. In a Republic, the majority is constrained by a written Constitution, which protects the rights of the individual and the minority from the whims of the majority. It is for exactly this reason that the United States was founded as Federal constitutional Republic.