By INCITES BY ED SILVERSTEIN
As evidenced by this year’s presidential race, here in America intelligent discourse has taken a back seat to labeling. Bush has labeled Kerry a flip-flopper and a Massachusetts liberal.
Labels are the ultimate form of bigotry because it defames without any defense, which explains why name-calling is the favorite argument of the ignorant. But while most people understand that such attacks are meaningless and deceptive, labels, like false accusations of rape or sexual harassment, have a habit of leaving a smear.
For instance, critics of my column have labeled me a liberal, albeit without the Massachusetts qualifier, though I did receive an e-mail damning me as a California “Jew” liberal.
Some readers have assumed that I’m a liberal because of my vehement attacks against President Bush. They are wrong.
The reason I dislike our President is because he is an inveterate liar that has sold out this country to corporate interests and religious extremists.
In truth, I’m a centrist, or more accurately, have both conservative and liberal views. And these positions are subject to change, not because I’m a flip-flopper, but because I process new information and integrate it into my thinking, something you won’t get from the President.
For instance, I’m a deficit hawk. I don’t like P.E.T.A. I don’t believe that “no” always means “no” or that a dirty joke creates a “hostile workplace.” I do not believe in gender or race-specific museums or awards, and I hate political correctness. I support welfare reform, but would modify the program to make it more humane.
I do believe that we need to save Medicare and Social Security. I do not believe that there is any justification for a child to go hungry in this country or be without health care. I am pro choice. I know we need tort reform, but we need protection from predatory corporations and bad doctors more. And if we don’t do something about the environment it will probably kill us.
More recently, some readers have taken to calling me an anti-Christian bigot. This was news to my Christian wife.
The impetus for these charges was my criticism of the President and extreme Christian fundamentalists who have taken over great swaths of policy in this country.
For instance, I have expressed concern about the use of federal tax dollars for Faith-Based Initiatives. It seems my concerns were justified.
According to Esther Kaplan in her book “With God On Their Side,” despite the president’s rhetoric about religious pluralism, all of the key personnel in the government’s new faith-based office are Christian. What’s more, out of hundreds of federal grants awarded to religious organizations, few, if any, have been awarded to Jewish or Muslim groups. When Bush was confronted with this fact his response was that he didn’t want to have a quota system.
Worse, the federal money that Bush promised was to be used exclusively for charitable endeavors is being funneled into proselytizing activities. And many of these evangelical groups believe it is their divine right to force their beliefs onto the rest of the world. So, in effect, my taxes are being used to spread a religion I don’t believe in and whose anti-science, pro-life, anti-contraception policies, I believe, have caused great harm and suffering throughout the world, not to mention that it tramples my constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state.
And I would feel exactly the same way if this money were going to ultra orthodox Jewish groups who were trying to expand settlements in the Gaza Strip, fundamentalist Muslim groups that promote beating women or Christian scientists who would ban doctors.
Of course, the actions of many of these groups is indefensible to anyone outside their order, so they resort to labels such as “anti-Christian.” It is no different or any less objectionable then when black leaders used racist and “Uncle Tom” to label anyone who suggested that some of the problems in the black community were self-inflicted.
These are simply ploys to marginalize and shut down dissent. But if we submit to such tactics, then we are all diminished. (Comments or requests for copies of this column can be sent to ). for others, I’m not so sorry. There are continual attempts at building- /remodeling/expansion/etc. that totally violate neighbors’ rights, the look and feel of a neighborhood, and the amount of increased density and congestion in both residential and commercial areas of Santa Monica.
It’s a shame the cookie store was met with so many obstacles and I am sure it was very frustrating. However, to use that as an example to reflect on most people’s experience is exaggerated and inaccurate. For the last five years or more there has been more building in Santa Monica — both residential and commercial — that somebody is obviously getting permits because it’s rampant. It’s difficult to find anywhere in the city right now where there isn’t a new condo, a second story being added or a huge addition being built in residential neighborhoods. And then, of course, you have the “overhauling” of downtown, which has included a massive expansion of new “mixed use” buildings, condos, shops, restaurants, etc.
So, please, who ever you are sending out these mailers, don’t try and sell me on the fact that it’s hard to open up a new business or build a new addition on to your house. I see the building going on everywhere and the new businesses opening on a regular basis.
I have an idea. Why not use some of the money you’re spending on these snappy, glossy mailers for some good “proactive” work in the community, perhaps for a positive solution for the many people who are hungry and homeless and need help desperately?
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 20, 2004. Read the original PDF.