Dave Kranz picks up on the cat fight developing over Sen. Scott Heidepriem's statements about Republicans being a party of "hate." Heidepriem, of course, switched parties last year and won a seat in the state Senate as a Democrat. He recently stated that his father had been a Republican because he "wanted to be a part of a party that was about hope, not hate." He now claims, Kranz reports, that he never actually said that Republicans were "haters," which of course is true, and also weasel words. The clear implication of his statement is that he was a Republican like his father, but not wanting to be in a party of hate, he switched. This is the conclusion he wished his audience to draw, otherwise what is the point about his father?
Heidepriem better check the luggage his own party carries. As political scientist Geoffry Layman has shown (see also here), a significant and growing number of Democratic activists are motivated by an evangelical secularism and who actively hate, not just disagree with, hate conservative Christians. And what to make of the party that campaigns on such slogans as "the people versus the powerful" and "there are two Americas," clearly designed to stoke class resentment and hostility. I could go on, but what would be the point. There's enough hate on all sides, so spare us the lecture.
This is a fine case study in self-righteousness. The self-righteous person feels better because (he believes) other people are worse. "I am so good because I am not like those people who are so bad." If one simply redefines the positions of one's political opponents as "hate," it can really help one feel morally superior. Like "hate," self-righteousness is plentiful on all sides in American politics.
Recent Comments