4 Reasons Why the Duck Dynasty Brouhaha Matters

Celebrate Diversity, by Mandating Conformity

Liberals had their talking points ready for the commencement of the Duck Dynasty war. Several took to cable news, MSNBC and Fox alike, to mount a remarkable defense of A&E. On The Kelly File last night, Bernard Whitman fired off a representative salvo when he opined that, as a gay Jewish man, he is well positioned to tell Christians what to believe. For some reason, his arrogance did not take his own breath away. He further stressed that the best way to celebrate the diversity of modern America is to ban opinions like those expressed by Robertson from public airing. "They should not be allowed on TV," he said.

Robertson did not express his opinion on TV, but in a print interview, but never mind that. He has never gone into much depth on his personal views on the show. That's not what Duck Dynasty is about. Whitman likely has never watched the show or heard of Phil Robertson prior to calling for an end to his career.

The idea, seriously offered, that we should celebrate diversity by mandating conformity is either an example of a comfortable version of cognitive dissonance, or plain old dishonesty. Cognitive dissonance is the ability to hold contradictory ideas as valid even though they cancel each other out. Whether "celebrate diversity by mandating conformity" is cognitive dissonance or dishonesty, it's strong evidence that having a rational, reasonable discussion with liberals like Whitman is no longer possible, and liberals like Whitman are the norm. They lead the progressive movement, write in all the approved newspapers, and get segments on all the networks. They either are incapable of seeing the flaws in their own logic, or they see them but don't care because their lies serve a purpose they find more important than mere honesty. Given yesterday's debate over lying to Amazon, and their ongoing defense of the many towering Obamacare lies, the latter is the safer way to bet. It's clear that leading liberal opinion makers do not have a problem with lying.

By the same token, some liberals challenged Republicans who criticized Martin Bashir with modern America's most poisonous accusation: hypocrisy. The situations are very different. Bashir was a news anchor who advocated that a specific person, Sarah Palin, should be grossly physically assaulted for her political views. He made his scripted comments on the air on MSNBC. Robertson answered a question asked of him for a print interview, was not on the air, and his full answer expresses the love and tolerance that liberals claim that they seek. Yet they pilloried Robertson anyway, to make an example of him.

Just comparing the two dissimilar situation demonstrates either a lack of comprehension, or more dishonesty.