The Left’s Selective Moral Outrage
Posted in : American on by : Michael Maharrey Tags: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Michelangelo Signorile, war
Tweets and tomes will break my bones but bombs will never hurt me.
A few weeks ago, Huffington Post columnist Michelangelo Signorile wrote an open letter to a “a long-time, long-distance friend” who voted for Donald Trump. Sigmorile basically said he could no longer associate with this individual because of his vote.
“How could I continue a friendship with you knowing that you voted for rolling back my rights as a gay man – most of Trump’s cabinet choices are vehemently opposed to LGBT rights – and the rights of millions of women and people of color?”
Signorile went on, building a moral case for disassociating with Trump supporters, no matter what reason they may have had for casting their vote.
“You’re too informed, too aware to just have blindly followed Trump. And my only conclusion is that the dark, ugly bigotry of this man was dismissed by you, tolerated by you. That’s unacceptable. You allowed for the legitimacy of white supremacists and a brutal misogyny we have never seen at this level of politics.”
You get the idea. Trump’s character and his potential policies are so deplorable, Signorile can’t, in good conscience, associate with anybody who tolerates them. He’s not alone. His open-letter resonated strongly with many on the left.
I can certainly understand why Signorile reviles Trump. And while I wouldn’t take this approach, I can appreciate his willingness to stand on principle and disassociate from a person he believes holds morally reprehensible views. Here’s my problem with Signorile and many on the left who share his viewpoint.
They supported a warmonger.
Trump has said plenty of revolting things. But his words pale in comparison with the policies Hillary Clinton actually had a hand in implementing. Hillary was a principle architect of “regime change” in Libya. “We came, we saw, he died.” She supported and actively pursued “regime change” in Syria – a disastrous policy that helped empower ISIS and resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. She rattled sabers at Russia during the campaign. Her foreign policy positions were so aggressive, she became the darling of neoconservatives warmongers.
On top of that these same people support Barack Obama. I’ve seen many who condemn Trump as a monster literally fawning over the president – a man with a kill list.
In fact, Obama and Clinton directed foreign policy virtually identical to George W. Bush. You know, the guy these same progressives decried as a war criminal (And rightly so).
So, the same people who want to stand on some kind of moral pedestal and disassociate from people because they supported a guy who says bad things have no problem actively supporting murderers? They wag their finger at Trump voters for tolerating Trump’s “dark, ugly bigotry,” while completely dismissing the actual violence unleashed on the world through the policies of Clinton, Obama and their minions.
I don’t get it.
Tom Woods made a similar observation after reading the headline “Gospel Singer’s ‘Ellen’ Appearance Canceled After Anti-Gay Sermon.”
“Oddly, I never read this headline: Hillary Clinton’s ‘Ellen’ Appearance Canceled After She Destroyed Two Countries…The same celebrity leftists who pride themselves on being on the morally superior side of every issue, who stand up for the despised and rejected, really couldn’t care less when the despised and rejected are non-Americans.”
People like Signorile and the rest of the leftest Sanhedrin like to parade around with their chins in the air certain of their moral superiority. Quite frankly, I’m not impressed with their selective moral outrage.
Photo by Romana Klee via Flickr.
2 thoughts on The Left’s Selective Moral Outrage
We saw a similar example of select moral outrage on the Right via #NeverTrump during the Republican presidential nomination process. The same people who lambasted Ron Paul in 2007 and 2012 and tried to shame conservatives into voting for McCain and Romney went on to decry Trump as a threat to the Constitution. Thankfully, voters refused to buy that farce.
If he accomplishes nothing else, Trump has (unwittingly, perhaps) exposed both sides to be inconsistent principally and philosophically corrupt.
That’s an excellent point. I’ll give you another example. In my work, I do a lot legislative work on surveillance. When Bush was president, the right was all for spying on everybody. When Obama was elected, suddenly spying was bad. I mean, your reliable neocons kept towing the line, but a lot of rank and file conservatives suddenly decided being spied on by Democrats wasn’t cool.
Comments are closed.