Life in­side the bub­ble

There’s no room for di­ver­sity on the weep­ing, wail­ing left

The Washington Times Daily - - EDITORIAL -

The weep­ing, wail­ing and gnash­ing of teeth on the in­con­solable left con­tin­ues seven weeks af­ter Hil­lary Clin­ton blew her in­evitable pres­i­dency, and the mourning now is mostly about the in­evitabil­ity of a Don­ald Trump pres­i­dency and whether the cor­rect-think­ing can sur­vive in the dirty, rot­ten world where cruel fate has cast them.

We don’t re­call a melt­down re­motely com­pa­ra­ble on the right when Barack Obama was elected pres­i­dent in 2008 and re-elected in 2012. Con­ser­va­tives were dis­ap­pointed and down­cast and even fear­ful of what was to come, but most of them un­der­stand that in elec­tions, as in the World Series and the Su­per Bowl, in a sand­lot soft­ball game and in play­ground game of rounders, for ev­ery win­ner there has to be a loser. That’s why God in­vented next year.

A new sur­vey con­firms what many have sus­pected, that those who de­mand “tol­er­ance” from those who dis­agree with them are them­selves the least tol­er­ant. The new sur­vey, con­ducted for the non­par­ti­san Pub­lic Religion Re­search In­sti­tute, finds that lib­er­als and Democrats are three times more likely to block, “un­friend” or “un­fol­low” some­one on so­cial me­dia over po­lit­i­cal dis­agree­ments than con­ser­va­tives and Repub­li­cans.

Nearly 1 in 4 Democrats say they have blocked, “un­friended” or stopped fol­low­ing some­one on Face­book, Twit­ter, In­sta­gram, Pin­ter­est or other so­cial-me­dia plat­forms since Nov. 8. The per­cent­age of self-pro­fessed lib­er­als pulling the on­line plug was even higher, at 28 per­cent.

Demo­cratic women are the least tol­er­ant of those who don’t see pol­i­tics their way, dis­con­nect­ing at a 30 per­cent rate, more than twice that of Demo­cratic men at 14 per­cent. They were ab­so­lutely, pos­i­tively sure that Hil­lary would be Madame Pres­i­dent.

Fewer than one in 10 Repub­li­cans and fewer than one in 12 con­ser­va­tives told the poll­sters they had “un­friended” or “un­fol­lowed” those in their so­cial-me­dia cir­cles for the crime of dis­agree­ing with their choice of can­di­dates.

The find­ings fol­low a Mon­mouth Univer­sity Poll in late Septem­ber that 7 per­cent of vot­ers say they lost, or dis­pensed with, a friend over the pres­i­den­tial race — 9 per­cent among Clin­ton sup­port­ers, and 6 per­cent of Trump back­ers.

The in­tol­er­ant left that de­mands ac­qui­es­cence (or si­lence) from ev­ery­one else on con­tro­ver­sial is­sues, from sanc­tu­ary cities to sex­ual ori­en­ta­tion, claim to do so in the name of di­ver­sity. Lib­er­als, alas, usu­ally fa­vor di­ver­sity ex­cept in the one area where di­ver­sity ac­tu­ally makes a dif­fer­ence — di­ver­sity of opin­ion.

Ac­knowl­edg­ing this can be tough for lib­er­als. When Ni­cholas Kristof, a colum­nist for The New York Times, wrote of “The Dan­gers of Echo Cham­bers on Cam­pus,” he in­vited con­sid­er­able wrath from the port side. “Too of­ten,” he wrote, “we em­brace di­ver­sity of all kinds ex­cept for ide­o­log­i­cal ... We want to be inclusive of peo­ple who don’t look like us — so long as they think like us.”

Aaron Han­lon, a pro­fes­sor at Colby Col­lege in Maine, was out­raged, and chided him in New Republic magazine for “con­tribut[ing] to the en­dur­ing strain of anti-in­tel­lec­tu­al­ism in Amer­i­can pol­i­tics.” Lib­eral in­tol­er­ance on cam­pus is an iso­lated phe­nom­e­non, he wrote, and he for one is fair to his stu­dents re­gard­less of their po­lit­i­cal be­liefs, but that “Trump and his sup­port­ers have no re­gard for knowl­edge or de­bate, and thrive on petty car­i­ca­tur­ing of po­lit­i­cal op­po­nents.” The pro­fes­sor thus makes the colum­nist’s point with un­ex­pected pre­ci­sion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.