The Great Democratic Fallacy: You Have To Respect People Who Exercise Their Rights.

iwo jimaI noted how President Obama failed to criticise Kaepernick. He told us those who wear and did wear the nation’s military uniform might be too dense to understand the deeper issues surrounding Kaepernick’s actions. Obama said nothing about the act itself other than it pleased him because  it may result in a conversation.

Hillary Clinton who avoids press conferences like the plague has been silent on the Kaepernick sit down. That was to be expected. She too is apparently afraid to stand up for our flag. That bodes ill for her taking over the presidency. Nothing is worse than silence in the face of effrontery.

Perhaps she will be asked about it during her debates. If so, I expect her response would be something like that of her running mate Senator Tim Kaine. He was asked about it.

He said: “You know, you’ve got to respect people’s ability to act according to their conscience.”  He said he would not have done what Kapernick did but added: “But you’ve got to respect people’s ability to act according to their conscience, so I wouldn’t presume to tell him what to do.”

Did he understand what he was saying?  Or was he merely mouthing off the Democratic “talking points.” They are composed of inanities which sound all right, confuse our media and the American people, but amount to gibberish.

What exactly do the words “respect people’s ability to act according to their conscience” mean? Is it only that we have to understand people have a right to do what their conscience tells them? I assume everyone agrees with that. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand or respect.

Worse, he follows up from that by saying “I wouldn’t presume to tell him what to do.” Is he suggesting that because a person acts according to his conscience then we must keep silent? Some do  outrageous acts. Are we to say nothing?

The tragedy is that Kaine did not have the courage to condemn Kaepernick. He could not simply say that he showed disrespect for our national flag during the playing of the national anthem. He feared addressing the issue.

It is worse than that though. Many will take from his statement that Kaepernick’s action deserves respect. He did not say that but the inference is there when he brings in the word respect. That is what President Obama certainly did.

Kapernick aside, the Kaine and Democratic position borders on the absurd. It is part of the present Democratic mindset that people must be respected for their “good faith” actions. The natural follow up to that is we will allow our nation to descend into a state of anarchy. Do we have to respect people who exercise their rights or can we make our own judgments as to the merit of their position?

Anthony Weiner a former congressman likes to send pictures of himself with his private parts exposed over the internet. This is called sexting. He has a constitutional right to do this. Do you think we have to “respect [his] ability to act according to {his} conscience?” Are we not to presume to tell him he is wrong in doing it.

I have a right to publish this blog with my thoughts. A person comments on the blog with words that include vile language, vituperative and off-color statements about women. Do I have to “respect [his] ability” to do this and by inference respect him? Am I being un-American by not doing so and deleting it? 

I am at a local museum. It is featuring work by an artist which defamed the Virgin Mary and Jesus. (I was going to suggest the art defamed Mohammed but no museum would have the courage to show that.) Do you I have to “respect [the artist’s] ability” to do this?

Doe a believer in God do I have to respect an atheist who tells her there is no God? If a young woman agrees to be photographed in the nude by her boyfriend and he then publicly displays the photographs does she have to show him respect? If a young woman tells her boyfriend that he should commit suicide should she be respected for exercising her First Amendment rights? If a woman exercises her right to have an abortion should she be respected by those who believe abortion is the murder of a human being. Should we presume not to tell them what we think?

I can go on since the examples are endless. There are many who act according to their conscience and do abominable acts. The word respect should never enter into any conversation about them. We must respect the people who wrote the Bill of Rights for giving us the right to do what we want; we do not have to respect the ability of a person who exercised those rights.

If what a person does repulses you then you must say so. Otherwise, inferentially, you approve of the action. As we learned in the law “silence is assent.”  Nothing is more un-American than to suggest to someone that respect is due to a person who does something that is disrespectful or insulting.

Perhaps it is that failure of Democratic courage that makes it possible for a person like Donald Trump to rise. His bluntness is a breath of fresh air to so many who are tired of the inability of our leaders to stand for anything of value.


20 thoughts on “The Great Democratic Fallacy: You Have To Respect People Who Exercise Their Rights.

      1. “Since 1947 Europe has seen peace”, except for the Basques, Spaniards, Hungarians, Czechs, Poles, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Yugoslavians, Romanians, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Greeks, Cypriots, …

  1. Matt:
    I thought you sorted out your tribal issues?

    Transcending Tribal Mentality
    By Caroline Myss

    All of us are born into a “tribal mentality” of various forms. These include our family unit, religious background, country of origin, ethnicity, etc. The tribal mentality effectively indoctrinates an individual into the tribe’s beliefs, ensuring that all believe the same. The structure of reality – what is and is not possible for the members of the group – is thus agreed upon and maintained by the tribe.

    While the tribal mentality has definite benefits in terms of establishing common ground and ensuring group survival, it is not a conscious agreement. We are born into it. Yet at a certain stage, both personally and collectively, the tribal mentality must be challenged. People can then begin to recognize the need for a personal honor code independent of the tribe. If humanity is to progress, we need to learn how to treat everyone – regardless of tribal affiliation – with honor and respect.

    Every one of us is plugged into the tribal mind. We support tribal belief patterns by directing a percentage of our life force into maintaining our affiliation with the tribe. This involves an implicit agreement to think like the tribe thinks, to evaluate situations and people the way the tribe does, and to believe in right and wrong according to tribal values and ambitions. As long as the tribal mentality within us remains unexamined, we unwittingly subject others to our tribal laws.

    When we are plugged into tribal thought forms, we can easily believe in nonsensical prejudices held by the tribe. Tribal mentality allows us to hold harsh, judgmental positions or attitudes about an entire group of people: “All fat people are lazy,” or “all Irish are drunks,” or “all Muslims are terrorists” for example.

    A rigid tribal thought form may have little truth to it, but individuals hold to such beliefs because that perspective is what the tribe has agreed to believe. Innocent children, born into the hatred and prejudice of their parents and ancestors, grow up inside a tribal mentality that sponsors an endless march toward war against the tribe’s perceived enemies. People grow up hating other people – people they have never seen – based on group affiliation. This is the shadow side of the tribe.

    Inevitably, some among us come to a point where we want to break out of the inflexible tribal mentality. At some point, these individuals want to explore, develop, and manage their own consciousness without the judgments and limitations of the tribal mind.

    It is easy to spot these mavericks when they start to question and unplug from tribal mentality – they hang out on the periphery looking bored and restless, or whimsical and dreamy. Others may act out the agitated hot-head as they challenge tribal ways.

    The unspoken assumption of the tribal mind is that everybody loves being part of the tribe. And in many ways, we do. Knowing where and to whom we “belong” is crucial to our self-concept and sense of safety in the world. Yet when we begin the real deep journey of questioning, “What do I believe?” and start to individuate from the tribe, we often enter a dark night of the soul. It is, by necessity, a passage we take alone.

    It’s one thing to reject what we don’t want to believe anymore. It’s quite another to begin to explore what we do believe. All we know as we enter the dark night is that we can’t go back – even when the tribe is the only world we’ve ever known.

    At this critical point in our development, the tribe doesn’t feel right anymore. It no longer offers us comfort. Previous feelings of security and familiarity begin to feel like a trap constraining our individuality and hampering our efforts to discover deeper levels of who we really are.

    This dark night passage pushes us to look at our false gods – the tribal belief patterns in which we’ve become invested and to which we’ve given our allegiance.

  2. Good posts! Matt, Tadzio and Jim are right on!
    Let’s condemn, not excuse nor condone, disrespectful acts.

  3. ” It is part of the present Democratic mindset that people must be respected for their ‘good faith’ actions. ” It would appear to be so except one can doubt that an attack on the sacred cow of important donors would be tolerated.

    How deep the rot is is better illustrated by the actions of Hillary Clinton, the top of the Democrat ticket. While she was head of the State Department a group of anti-Christian provocateurs entered Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior and profaned the altar with obscene antics – a sanitized description. They were charged with hooliganism and two were convicted. Freed after serving most of their sentences by an amnesty they got visas to come to these shores where they were welcomed by the Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton.

    Clinton’s State Department had protested the prosecution of these vulgar haters. When they were in America they were met by the now private citizen Clinton who lauded their actions and waxed enthusiastically, “Great to meet the strong and brave young women from Pussy Riot, who refuse to let their voices be silenced in Russia.” Clinton supported their behavior to the extent that she posed for publicity shots with those who desecrated a Christian house of worship.

    Hillary Clinton promotes the anti-Christian criminal actions of the bigoted so-called entertainers.

    It is too harsh to attack Kaine. The real problem is higher up the ticket. He tags along with Clinton whether he likes it or not. Perhaps his inarticulateness reflects misgivings with her. The fish rots from the head down and the head of the Democrat ticket is very rotten indeed.

    1. well, Tadzio, as much as I hate Killery, it is really stretching things to claim that she promotes the “anti-Christian actions” of Pussy Riot.

      You obviously know nothing about the so-called Russian orthodox “church,” which is not a chuch, but a political arm of the mafia government of Putler and his Kremlinoid gang.

      That “church” was co-opted long ago by Sralin and became infested with KGB agents. When the so-called patriarch, Kirill, got caught with a $40,000 watch on his hand in a photo of him meeting with someone else, the “church” airbrushed the watch out of the picture – but forgot to take care of the reflection of the watch on the table. People had a lot of fun with that one.

      When he traveled to Ukraine to “visit his flock” – and to preach Kremlinoid imperialism – he had a separate train car, disguised to look like a passenger compartment. It carried his Cadillac Escalade, caught in pictures by Ukrainian news media.

      It became fashionable for thug sovok Russian mafia oligarchs to build “churches” all over the place – but noone goes there. The oligarchs claim that they are “good” for building empty churches.

      The Russian orthodox “church” beats other Christians in Russia, who dare to encroach on “their territory” – notably Protestants.

      You are not referring to a Christian house of worship – you are referring to a show palace, and Pussy Riot got arrested because they exposed the whole rotten, bestial mess, headed by a guy who dresses like the chief dragon of the Ku Klux Klan – Kirill.

    2. tadzio, I don’t disagree with you about the fish rotting from the head, etc.

      But here’s just a little bit more on the Russian orthodox “church”:

      blogger Ruslan Sokolovsky is being prosecuted for playing Pokemon Go in the Church of All Saints in Yekaterinburg?

      now why would that be a crime – except in a “church” that is a farce, a political tool, not a church

  4. Matt, Nobody is confusing respect for washed-up quarterback Colin Kaepernick with respect for freedom of expression. And let’s not forget something that strengthens Kaepernick’s hand. The NFL was paid millions of dollars by our military to unfurl the flag before the games and to conduct other patriotic ceremonies in the stadium. Do you really expect me to believe Kaepernick is less respectful of our flag than the NFL greed heads who demanded cash up front to unfurl Old Glory? The practice has stopped, but only because of adverse publicity.

    1. Dan:

      To answer your question which is: “Do you really expect me to believe Kaepernick is less respectful of our flag than the NFL greed heads who demanded cash up front to unfurl Old Glory” I must say that Kaepernick’s show of disrespect could not have occurred if the greedy owners did not approve of it. They control what he can do even though they pretend he has the freedom to do what he wants. You can never underestimate their greed; in a sense, if I wanted to fall into a conspiracy theory mode I could suggest that they put him up to it so that the audience watching the TV games would increase by those who wanted to see how many other players would stand up or sit down during the anthem.
      Yes, when they took money from the military to show the flag that was disgraceful. That they did it and it had no effect on their fans has made them believe they operate with impunity because mobs of Americans are so hooked on their games nothing they can do will affect them.

      1. Matt: Not to change the subject, but have you noticed that the FanDuel and DraftKings ads are back in force? Guess the heat is off.

  5. Hello Matt, great blog, right on point. I’m now nominating Us Hockey Coach , John Tortorella, for President after he, in exercising his right, told his assembled squad, that ” if any of my players sit on the bench for the atonal anthem, they will sit there the rest of the game “.

  6. Matt:

    While you’re on the subject of the Obama Administration, he just sent pallets of “cash” to Iran, some of those taxpayer dollars will be used to murder American soldiers and many other innocent people, while our inner-cities, schools and infrastructure go begging for aid.

    Newsworthy – worth a column from you?

    1. Sometimes, it costs to get our people back. Money is just paper. Do you think those young folks were lost and just wandering around out there on the Iranian border. They all worked at the embassy. What ever it cost, good, great, cheap at twice the price.

      1. Sometimes, this site reminds me of the Toast Masters Club at Taft. Bros, if you are listening, give me a shout-out.

Comments are closed.