Uppity Conservatives

How Dare Rush Try to Leave the “Hood”?

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Oct. 19, 2009

The word “uppity” is rarely used today, but years ago it was common. Usually it referred to an African American who didn’t “know his place.” His “place,” of course, was at the back of the bus, or the back of the classroom. He was tolerated so long as he didn’t question authority, no matter whether the authority was right or wrong.

Women, Jews and Hispanics were more often referred to as “pushy” when they didn’t “know their place,” but the idea was the same: The “in” group should make all the decisions and have all the choice assignments. The “in” group should dominate the discussion, with others keeping quiet, or at most meekly agreeing. The “in” group should go about their daily activities without being inconvenienced by the “outs” − or, if possible, even seeing them. The “outs” were, in effect, non-persons.

I thought those days were long gone. I thought the notion that there was an “in” group, much less that it should be in control, was long dead. I thought the concept that the “outs” should keep to themselves, in their own ghettoes and barrios, and not interfere with the “in” group, was thoroughly discredited. I thought that liberals would be the first to discard such reactionary beliefs.

Man, was I wrong.

The uproar over Rush Limbaugh attempting to buy a minority interest in the St. Louis Rams football team amazed me. I found it deeply ironic that self-anointed “liberals” and “progressives” would imitate McCarthyite tactics by attempting to damage someone’s career with unfounded, fabricated accusations.

Even for someone who never listens to Rush, the accusations were unbelievable on their face. Can you imagine a person as prominent as he, on a syndicated radio show with 20 million listeners, making horrible, racist statements on the air − and nothing was done about it? Can anyone believe that such statements could have been made, and not evoked a storm of protest at the time?

Can any sane person believe that Rush could have praised the assassin of Dr. King, even saying that he deserved a “medal of honor”? Can anyone believe that he justified slavery? Can anyone believe that he would treat a football team like a slave “plantation”? Yes, someone can. But not just anyone − a professor of journalism at a prestigious college and a Pulitzer Prize recipient. And how did she know Rush actually made those hateful statements? She saw it on the Internet.

Is this the depth to which journalism has sunk? Is this what professors teach journalism students − take unverified quotes from an unedited and obviously biased source, and present them to the public as if they were facts? As Mark Steyn points out, U.S. libel laws make it almost impossible for a “public figure” like Rush to sue. But MSNBC and CNN are seen in the British Commonwealth. Laws in Canada and Britain are much more favorable to the plaintiff.

If Rush chooses to sue, he may well become even richer. And he may teach the mainstream media that the “mainstream” should not become a sewer through which disgusting excrement can pass, so long as it is splattered on conservatives.

Nor was this sorry episode the only instance of McCarthyism on the Left. Keith Olbermann joined the anti-Rush gang with a typical tirade. You know, the Olbermann who called Chris Wallace “a monkey posing as a newscaster.” Yes, that Olbermann. Wallace is Jewish. At a time when fanatics want to wipe every Jew off the Earth and call them “pigs and monkeys,” one might think that a man with a German name − a man who claims to speak against bigotry − might be more careful in referring to a colleague. One would be wrong.

And joining the merry band of Rush bashers we also find Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson and Al “Jewish diamond merchants” Sharpton. Those who claim to see racism everywhere should realize that they are projecting their own bigotry onto others. They should understand that they are providing a window not on the world, but into their own minds. I wish they would pull the drapes − the view is repulsive.

To top things off, NFL Players’ Union Executive Director DeMaurice Smith asked the NFL commissioner to block Rush’s part ownership of the team. But Smith is also a Democratic Party activist and an Obama donor. Must we inject politics into sports, as it has been into almost every other aspect of life? Can’t we even watch a football game without politics intruding? Must the totalitarian temptation encroach everywhere?

So who really are the bigots?

Liberals tolerate conservatives so long as they “know their place.” Conservatives are allowed, reluctantly, to write in Weekly Standard and National Review. Conservatives are allowed, grudgingly, to post on conservative websites, though even that may be in question if “Net neutrality” is misapplied. Conservatives are allowed, resentfully, to speak on talk radio, though serious efforts are under way to restrict this freedom, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

But what of those centers of “free inquiry,” the universities? Except for the hard sciences, they are as segregated now as universities in the South were in the 1950s. In those days, blacks were excluded. Now, conservatives are excluded from the faculty, while conservative students must keep their opinions to themselves. In the rare cases when conservatives are invited to speak, they may need bodyguards, and they are often shouted down or assaulted.

Thus far, conservatives are allowed to operate with reasonable freedom − so long as they stay in their own neighborhoods. That way, liberals can go all week and never hear a conservative opinion that might challenge their own, set beliefs. Conservatives can do more-or-less what they want, so long as they remain in the “hood.” Similarly, street gangs can roam more-or-less free, so long as they kill each other, or kill other minorities.

But let a street gang wander into a “good” neighborhood, or let a conservative try to leave the “hood” and interact with “nice” people, and all hell breaks loose. The so-called liberals go into spasms. The self-styled progressives demand action. The self-anointed humanitarians rouse themselves from their self-induced stupor.

The Left barely tolerates conservatives only so long as they talk to one another, write for one another, post for one another, and interact with one another. But if a conservative, especially a prominent one, should dare to leave the conservative “hood,” they jump all over him. He must be punished severely, so he will never again make the mistake of trying to mingle with “nice” people.

That’s liberal? That’s progressive? That’s tolerant? That’s inclusive? No, that’s just the way things are.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He can be contacted at dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com