Peter Lemiska
Progressives need some new epithets
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By Peter Lemiska
May 17, 2012

Oh, those Republicans are a nasty, hateful lot! Listening to the musings of Senator Harry Reid, the Reverend Al Sharpton, Governor Howard Dean, just plain Cher, and others on the far left, it's hard to reach any other conclusion. Let's see. Republicans hate all minorities, including blacks, women, Hispanics, and gays. They hate immigrants, and they're not too crazy about the elderly, either. And since the only thing they really love is money, they must hate the poor, as well.

Now some argue that all of these charges are nothing more than fabrications conjured up by a flailing and desperate administration, in a cynical attempt to divide the country and to divert attention from Barack Obama's failed presidency.

But regardless of the motives behind it, it's pretty clear that progressives are running out of epithets.

The traditional, well-established pejoratives have always worked pretty well for them. Ever since the 2008 election, the term "racist" has gotten a lot of play. If you oppose Obamacare, you are a racist. If you're concerned about the wonton spending in Washington and our staggering national debt, you're a racist. Likewise, if you challenge anything at all the Obama Administration does, you do it because of your inherent racism. So what if you, and so many others like you, once supported Obama and enthusiastically handed him the presidency. That was then, and this is now. The racial tendencies you worked so hard to suppress have obviously gotten the best of you.

"Misogynist" is another word progressives like to hurl at Republicans. And who better to hurl it than female entertainment legend, Cher. Her angst no doubt stems from the relentless, but futile efforts by Republicans to keep her off the stage and in the kitchen. But branding Republicans as women haters is a little extreme. It's a concept that has long been promoted by militant feminists. They forget that a good many of those Republicans are, in fact, women just like them, but without the gender envy. They're women who prefer to focus on their families and careers, rather than agonize over inflated claims of gender bias. And if the radical feminists have any issues with the Republican platform, is it really fair to label those hapless Republican men as misogynists? Most of the ones I know appreciate, respect, and love women. Shouldn't that term be applied where it really belongs, to people like Bill Maher, for example?

And the resourcefulness of the committed left is unmatched. When the existing epithets aren't quite adequate, they cleverly invent new ones. The term "homophobe" is a perfect example. A non-threatening, rather fussy word, it's been very effective over the years in helping to advance the gay agenda. Initially, it was used against those who viewed the homosexual lifestyle as immoral and unhealthy. But nobody wanted to be labeled a homophobe; and gay activists and the far left knew they had a winner. Today, if you oppose the introduction of homosexuality to school kids, you're a homophobe. If you reject same-sex marriage, guess what? You're a homophobe. In fact, if you oppose any part of the radical gay agenda, you must be homophobic.

The term has worked out so well for them they might want to consider using it as a blueprint for new words to accommodate their ever-expanding array of straw-man villains.

So if you're a little unsettled, a bit bothered by foreigners illegally streaming across our southern border, Harry Reid and Howard Dean have your number. You just hate Latinos. In fact, you hate all immigrants in general. But there should be a word for that, something like "immigrantaphobia."

And everyone remembers the political ad depicting Paul Ryan throwing some defenseless wheelchair-bound grandmother off a cliff. After watching it, anyone with half a brain understood that Republicans hate old people. But branding them as enemies of the elderly is somewhat harsh — unseemly even for progressives. They really need a new word, something less offensive and a little more subtle. How about, "fogeyphobes?" They could do a one-line bumper sticker: "If you're a senior, you don't want a fogeyphobe in the White House."

With that, progressives would have pretty much all the bases covered. And if there's some segment of society they might have missed, sooner or later, they'll find a way to accuse Republicans of hating it. Thank God for all the love and tolerance the far left brings to this world. Or I should say, thank the fates; after all, I wouldn't want to be branded an "athiestaphobe."

The fact is, Americans are growing tired of victimization politics. They're tired of the divisiveness and bogus accusations that this administration so freely spouts. The vast majority of Americans who are branded as hateful, racist, misogynistic, and homophobic are none of those things. They are people who believe in traditional American values. They believe in equal rights for everyone, including the innocent, without special accommodations for the few. They believe in the absolute sovereignty of the country, but welcome legal immigration through an orderly process. They believe in affordable and reasonable social programs that do not bankrupt the country. And most of all, they believe in the Constitution. Let's see, what can we call them? What about "patriots?"

© Peter Lemiska

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Peter Lemiska

Peter Lemiska is a freelance writer and former Senior Special Agent of the U.S. Secret Service... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Peter Lemiska: Click here

More by this author