|
There are liberals who deny wholesale some particular Democrat can be homophobic--even as he promotes homophobic religious leaders, balks at equality, and withholds support for basic human rights. These liberals dismiss the angry reaction of their comrades to their denial as unreasonable. They instantly acquit themselves of any bigotry, however latent. Nothing could convince them they are in any way bigoted.
Now here comes some of those same liberals, upset themselves. Their comrades are denying liberal pundits can be racist, that Obama is held to a different standard because he is black. These comrades dismiss all angry reactions to their denial as unreasonable. These comrades instantly acquit themselves of any bigotry, however latent. Nothing could convince them they are in any way bigoted.
This happens because people are naturally more sensitive to one form of bigotry than another. Angry words directed at Obama from white liberals provokes more scrutiny from some than indifference or outright hostility to basic human rights from straight liberals.
Nothing is more certain to a liberal than the magnanimity and justice of his own thought. Nothing is more obvious to him than the latent biases driving the thoughts of others. So long as this is true, accusing liberals of hidden and subtle bigotry, even if true, generally does nothing useful whatsoever. One side dismisses, denies, and forgets; the other feels completely betrayed.
If you can point to something which can derive only from a belief in the inherent superiority of one part of humanity over another, then you might have something that can break this cycle.
Let's make my own bias clear. That white liberal pundits say harsh things about Obama's actions may or may not derive from latent bigotry. I have no idea. That many prominent Democrats see fit to pal around with homophobic religious leaders and are indifferent to the goal of equal rights in their votes clearly derives from bigotry. The bigotry of others is at minimum is driving their behavior.
Yes? No?
|