Please note that these links do exist -- but
they're in the process of being shuffled around a little because of some
asshole making an issue of my web sites in court. If one doesn't work today
-- it will very soon. I'm guessing November 30, 2005!
Jeff Jacoby's column from the December 31,
2002 edition of The Houston Chronicle:
"Bobby Ehrlich is a Nazi ...
He should be running in Germany, in 1942, not Maryland in 2002. We'll define
him as the Nazi he is. Once we do that, I think people will vote for
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend."
Thus spake Democratic political consultant Julius Henson -- about
Congressman Robert Ehrlich, the Republican candidate in Maryland's
gubernatorial election this year.
Henson had just signed on to work for Townsend, Ehrlich's Democratic
opponent, and made his repugnant remarks in an interview with
The Washington Post.
It was a classic example of liberal hate speech -- the poisonous political
rhetoric to which I devote a column at the end of each year. The theme of
these columns has been the double standard by which politicians, journalists
and activists on the left get a pass, when they use scandalous and vitriolic
language to demonize their opponents -- language that would get
conservatives crucified, if they spoke that way about a liberal.
Of course, there is no end of ugliness on the political fringes, left- and
right-wing both. And, of course, hateful slurs should be avoided by everyone
-- conservatives and liberals alike.
But, when a player in the mainstream flings a vicious smear -- "Bobby
Ehrlich is a Nazi" -- it's generally safe to bet that it's a liberal doing
the flinging. And that the media and his fellow liberals will let him get
away with it.
But, maybe things are changing. This year -- for the first time I can
remember -- some on the left were taken to task for uttering contemptible
libels about their political foes.
Just hours after Henson's "Nazi" calumny against Ehrlich was reported, the
Townsend campaign fired him -- calling his words "inexcusable".
It wasn't the only case of liberal hate speech drawing a liberal rebuke.
While delivering the invocation at the Connecticut Democratic convention las
summer, longtime party activist Ned Coll labeled Republican Gov. John
Rowland a "snake" and a "glorified thug" -- and called for "death to the
Prince of Darkness".
It is not hard to imagine what would happen to a Republican who openly
prayed for the death of a Democrat. But, Coll's remark drew little attention
-- until Matt Drudge highlighted it on his radio show and web site.
The Republican party then asked Sen. Joseph Lieberman to admonish his fellow
Connecticut Democrat. To his credit, Lieberman did.
Coll's remarks were "offensive and indefensible", Lieberman said bluntly.
"Such vicious attacks have no place in political discourse."
But, no prominent Democrat spoke with equal bluntness, about Harry Belafonte
-- who described Secretary of State Colin Powell as a bootlicking plantation
"slave" -- who curries favor to "come into the house of the master".
And no prominent liberal blasted Gerardo Villacres, the head of the Hispanic
American Chamber of Commerce, when he likened California businessman Ron Unz
to a Nazi -- for financing ballot campaigns to end bilingual education.
Sliming conservatives as Nazis often seems to the first refuge of liberal
hate-talkers. Do they really not understand the terrible malignancy of that
term?
Sandra Bernhard, the actress and alleged comedienne, was asked during an
online Washington Post chat for her thoughts on terrorism.
"The real terrorist threats," she replied, "are George W. Bush ... and his
band of brown-shirted thugs." (The Nazi stormtroopers were known as
brown-shirts.)
Miami minister and radio host Victor Curry castigated the Bush
administration over the air -- for its "neo-Nazi, right-wing, mission
against the American people.""
In a magazine interview, Sean Penn likened Bill O'Reilly, the popular Fox News Channel personality to
Osama bin Laden, Sen. Joseph McCarthy, and -- of course -- Adolph Hitler.
Describing a Republican as a Nazi is clearly hate speech. What about
implying that he is gay?
That was what the Montana Democratic Party did to Mike Taylor, the GOP
candidate for U.S. senator this year. The Democrats inserted an ancient TV
clip of Taylor -- who once owned a string of hair salons -- and turned it
into an ad that played up every stereotype of the homosexual male
hairdresser.
As one Montana daily reported, the ad showed Taylor applying lotion to the
face of a male customer. He is seen "wearing a tight-fitting, three-piece,
suit, with a big-collared, open shirt ... Taylor's top two or three shirt
buttons are unbuttoned, exposing some bare chest, and a number of gold
chains".
The innuendo was blatant -- and, in political terms, devastating.
If Republicans ever deployed such heavy-handed gay-baiting against a
Democrat, the uproar would be deafening. But, there was no uproar, when it
was done to a Republican -- not even from groups that usually roar with
outrage when gays or lesbians are mocked.
The double standard on political sleaze may have weakened in 2002. Alas, it
is still going strong.
