So I must consider that this movement is orchestrated by those who are not on the same plane as those well-respected conservatives I know, or that they are being used by the higher-ups for some purpose "" pawns in the game of politics.
Long ago, I developed a general definition of conservatism and liberalism. Being generalizations, they do not, of course apply in every case, but are meant to be applicable in most cases.
To me, Conservatives say "What is good for me is good for everyone."
Liberals say, "What is good for everyone is good for me."
Conservatives tend to believe that they have the answers and the main problem is that not everybody listens to them and that is why we have such a screwed up world.
On the other hand, liberals tend to think that the answers lie in the diversity and multiplicity of the group and that, if we just allow everyone to be themselves, everything will be all right. At the risk of sounding like a Centrist (oh that word!) the answer most often lies somewhere between the two extremes, I think. In this case, we have people who are offended by what Letterman said and, because it offends them, they believe that he should not be able to say anything to anyone from that platform. They want him punished for his mistake and they want him to be unable to say anything that might upset them. It's not enough for them to simply turn off their own televisions or to watch something else; they want it to be unavailable to anyone.
In other words, they think that because they don't want it, no one should.
If we wish to understand the divisions in this country at this time, and if we wish to find the causes of political and social polarity, I feel we need look no farther than this episode, for it so clearly illustrates, in my mind, the problem; and the answer.
In 1916, director D. W. Griffith made a film called Intolerance. It was a film about humanity's cruelty to its own kind (and, I suppose, by extension, other kinds). It was meant to point out the dangers and results of societal intolerance, but, if viewed closely, it is more about the attitudes of individuals toward other individuals. In each of the stories, it is not the monolithic State and is the perpetrator of the wrongs against others, but it is the individuals that control the State that are responsible. In tolerance "" the inability to allow in others a trait or habit or culture or fashion or belief "" is an element of all oppression and the tool of all tyrants. Without intolerance, there can be no Stalin or Hitler or Mugabe. Without intolerance, there can be no Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern, as well. Without intolerance, there can be no debate on pro-choice or prolife. And without intolerance, there can be no racism, sexism, culturalism or hatred.
There are things that, within a working society, must not be tolerated. There must be laws to protect those who would be victims, intentional or not. But the greatest threat to any society is the threat of intolerance, for it will, without exception, bring about strife and decline.
Let those who feel that Letterman "" or anyone else for that matter "" is undeserving of their attention and practice that belief in their own lives. But let them also understand that allowing others to have their own beliefs and to practice them is the highest form of the expression of Freedom and to impose ones beliefs upon another "" whether it is the right to control one's own body, or the employment of a late-night talk show host "" is the very antithesis of the very values they say they stand for.
Long ago, I developed a general definition of conservatism and liberalism. Being generalizations, they do not, of course apply in every case, but are meant to be applicable in most cases.
To me, Conservatives say "What is good for me is good for everyone."
Liberals say, "What is good for everyone is good for me."
On the other hand, liberals tend to think that the answers lie in the diversity and multiplicity of the group and that, if we just allow everyone to be themselves, everything will be all right. At the risk of sounding like a Centrist (oh that word!) the answer most often lies somewhere between the two extremes, I think. In this case, we have people who are offended by what Letterman said and, because it offends them, they believe that he should not be able to say anything to anyone from that platform. They want him punished for his mistake and they want him to be unable to say anything that might upset them. It's not enough for them to simply turn off their own televisions or to watch something else; they want it to be unavailable to anyone.
In other words, they think that because they don't want it, no one should.
If we wish to understand the divisions in this country at this time, and if we wish to find the causes of political and social polarity, I feel we need look no farther than this episode, for it so clearly illustrates, in my mind, the problem; and the answer.
In 1916, director D. W. Griffith made a film called Intolerance. It was a film about humanity's cruelty to its own kind (and, I suppose, by extension, other kinds). It was meant to point out the dangers and results of societal intolerance, but, if viewed closely, it is more about the attitudes of individuals toward other individuals. In each of the stories, it is not the monolithic State and is the perpetrator of the wrongs against others, but it is the individuals that control the State that are responsible. In tolerance "" the inability to allow in others a trait or habit or culture or fashion or belief "" is an element of all oppression and the tool of all tyrants. Without intolerance, there can be no Stalin or Hitler or Mugabe. Without intolerance, there can be no Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern, as well. Without intolerance, there can be no debate on pro-choice or prolife. And without intolerance, there can be no racism, sexism, culturalism or hatred.
There are things that, within a working society, must not be tolerated. There must be laws to protect those who would be victims, intentional or not. But the greatest threat to any society is the threat of intolerance, for it will, without exception, bring about strife and decline.
Let those who feel that Letterman "" or anyone else for that matter "" is undeserving of their attention and practice that belief in their own lives. But let them also understand that allowing others to have their own beliefs and to practice them is the highest form of the expression of Freedom and to impose ones beliefs upon another "" whether it is the right to control one's own body, or the employment of a late-night talk show host "" is the very antithesis of the very values they say they stand for.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
