Wednesday, August 14, 2019

Unacceptable By Association

     We tend to judge a man, at least in part, by the company he keeps. The practice goes all the way back to Eden. The Pharisees tried to use it against Jesus, for His willingness to associate with publicans and sinners. It’s not entirely unfair or nonsensical. But it has consequences, and not all of them are good ones.

     Granted, proximity is sometimes illusory. The “six degrees of separation” effect can be used to link persons who know nothing about one another. But an individual’s voluntary associations are and have always been considered an indication of what that individual considers acceptable in others. In the past, this has been exploited by both the Left and the Right. Today it’s a major tactic of the Left in its war on the rights of American citizens.

     The contemporary (i.e., totalitarian) Left uses the practice to its advantage by polluting groups of Right-inclined persons with fakers who openly espouse unacceptable views. Fora hospitable to the Right are their principal targets. Once such a forum opens for business, the Left details trolls to join it and to spout vileness: politicized racial, ethnic, and sexual bigotry, calls for mass murder, “entertainment” of the lowest kinds of porn and violence. Leftist activists then immediately denounce that forum as a place where only the unacceptable would go.

     I’ve witnessed this tactic at several recently-opened "social media" sites dedicated to free expression:

     The pattern has been consistent. The responses to it have not.

     The tactic has an in-the-flesh equivalent that’s becoming more worrisome. Historically, the technique involved inserting “supporters” into a political rally that others would deem unacceptable for their other connections: e.g., “Satanists for Trump.” However, AntiFa, the Democrat Party’s Brownshirts, has been “overheard” talking about infiltrating free-speech demonstrations so that when violence erupts, they can make it look as if the free-speech advocates started it.

     As usual, the tactic is oriented toward persuading unaligned Americans that “you don’t want to be part of that crowd.” And unfortunately, it works.

     Every era – every moment — is “a time of transition.” The “from” and the “to” are often discernible only long afterward. Moreover, whether the change was for good or for ill can remain questionable for decades.

     The November 2016 election indicated that a great many Americans had finally become sufficiently disenchanted with the political elite to rebel against it, at least at the ballot box. Yet we cannot know with certainty whether that disenchantment will endure. The Left is putting forth all its forces in the attempt to make the Trump Administration and its agenda look unacceptable to the unaligned. Indeed, the “Russian collusion” hoax was aimed at no other result. The recent attempt to tie President Trump to the late Jeffrey Epstein was a follow-up, albeit a weak and easily refuted one.

     The hot-button issues of the moment are illegal immigration to the United States and the right to keep and bear arms. (Yes, there are other important issues; these are the ones that currently command the greater part of the national discourse.) Look for the Left to use its unacceptable-by-association tactic on both. In the case of the influx of illegal aliens over our southern border, the approach will be to color it as racial and / or ethnic hatred. In the case of the right to keep and bear arms, gun-rights advocates will be juxtaposed with mass murderers and advocates thereof. Ordinary decent Americans who lack firm opinions on those matters will be asked, subtly and sotto voce, whether they’d be happy about enabling the aspirations of such persons.

     We need a counter-tactic that can nullify the effect of those thrusts. At the moment we don’t have one. Thoughts?

1 comment:

pc-not said...

There are many analogies that come to mind. Since football season is around the corner, I'll take that one for $200 Alex. We often hear conservative pundits opine that Republicans seem to only play defense. We consistently go about our business until some Democrat generated false narrative raises its ugly head and then scramble to disavow it.

On the gridiron this strategy is sometimes fun to watch if the defense is capable of recovering fumbles or returning interceptions for touchdowns. The problem is that unless your offense is capable of significant time of possession, the defensive unit will wear itself out and become less effective.

By nature, we on the right do not go around creating deceptions for the public to fall prey to. We just want to pursue what Jefferson laid out in the Declaration. So right about now it's getting late in the fourth quarter. Our defense is tired and getting overwhelmed. The fans are nervous because we clearly have the better all around team, but the opposition is getting many close plays thrown to their advantage by unfair officiating. There is also definite bias in the announcers' booth. Instant replays mostly go our way, but the viewers have already made up their minds based on the original missed call.

The obvious answer is to step up the offense. However, as it is not in our nature to run trick plays, the other team's game plan is simplified because they know we only stick to fair play basics.