I read an article by Michelle Malkin a couple of weeks ago, A Christian Business in the Left's Crosshairs. It's about how Chick-fil-A is being targeted by some lefties. I didn't think much of it at the time. It seemed as if it was just more of the same. Then, a friend of mine sent it to me today. As I reread it, I began to think.
This is a common tactic of the professional intolerance police and the perpetually offended of the left.
Of the left? Yes, of the left. While granting that it is theoretically possible for some “on the right” to use this tactic, I can’t recall any examples. If it has occurred, it was likely executed by someone masquerading as a “rightwing” ideologue in an attempt to discredit a group or a movement. Remember when lefties were attempting to infiltrate Tea Party gatherings? The right just doesn’t have anyone like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the Human Rights Campaign, etc. Let’s face it, the left has a monopoly on professional grievance-mongering.
So, what’s the tactic? The tactic is slander and here's how it's done.
The first two steps come in no particular order. Find a target and find something “offensive”. Notice that finding a target can come first. As this is not about legitimate grievances and their resolution, it’s perfectly acceptable to determine who you want to injure and then later figure out how it is that they’ve offended you. You can also be opportunistic when acquiring a target. Sometimes, a potential target can say or do something that is particularly easy to take offense at. Remember Don Imus? Lefties didn't have him in the crosshairs. He just said something that was too easy to exploit.
And the offense? It can be anything. It doesn't matter how small, insignificant, irrelevant or false. Candidates are anything that can be stretched, twisted or otherwise morphed from a phony offense into something that, to stupid people and people on the left, could conceivably resemble a legitimate offense. (Yes, I realize that was redundant). I once heard Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee pontificate that the label, "sergeant" as it had been applied to MSNBC talking head Ed Shultz, might be an ethnic slur.
Then, make a big deal out of the phony offense. The leftist media will happily publicize your charade, er… complaint. They’ll be happy to pick it up and begin to report as if it’s a legitimate story. In fact, the leftist media originate many of these incidents. And when I say leftist media, I’m not talking about the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post or MSNBC. I’m talking about NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, the New York Times, etc. I recall many of the talking heads somberly reporting on the “Macaca” controversy.
Now that you’ve obtained the support of the leftist media, begin to harangue the “offender” to apologize for the phony offense. Find weaklings who are ostensibly on the side of the “offender”. Get them to wax serious about the “strawman” and encourage them to call on the “offender” to apologize. This is something that RINO’s are especially good for. This step of the process is to lend legitimacy to an otherwise obviously illegitimate claim. “Hey, if John McCain is calling for them to apologize, then there must be something to the charge.” Often, the “offender” will try to diffuse the situation by attempting some generic apology, “I’m sorry if anyone was offended. I never intended to...”. This never diffuses the situation. It simply encourages the slanderers. Remember Trent Lott?
Begin to demand that the “offender” disavow all sorts of crazies. The purpose of this step isn’t to get the “offender” to moderate or to cease offending. No, this step is all about associating the “offender” with crazies. The person or group being slandered should never participate in this step. If the “offender” does disavow some crazy or group of crazies, the media can report it while shaking their heads and giving the impression that they just don’t believe it. And then, after reporting that the “offender” has disavowed some crazies, they can always go get the other side of the story. Sweet! "So-and-so says that the disavowal is insincere". I mean after all, they wouldn't want to report only the “offender's” side of the story would they? Who can forget the demands for the Tea Party to disavow racism and racist groups?
As the controversy develops, you can demand that the “offender” resign, get sensitivity training, make reparations payments or any of dozens of potential acts of supplication, humbly begging for forgiveness. If the “offender” succumbs to any of these demands, it will be perceived as an admission of guilt.
This tactic is not about settling grievances. It doesn’t seek to repair differences or clear up misunderstandings. It’s all about attempting to destroy those with whom you disagree by using any means necessary. Lies, deceit, slander... they’re the tools of the leftist's trade.
Civility anyone?
No comments:
Post a Comment