If a politician wants to win a debate, electoral race or public opinion battle, there is one golden word that ensures victory. If an opponent can be labeled as one who hates, then the debate or race can easily be over.
When it comes to any of the major debates today, the “hate” label is placed on those who disagree with “new” initiatives. But why is it so effective to use a word (or words like it) that is so subjective? Why do so many people glom onto such a label and turn against anyone who has been labeled thusly and what is actual hatred anyway?
We hear regularly that those who oppose
“Gay Marriage” do so based in hatred. However, is it hatred which states that marriage is a long standing institution between a man and a women? If religion is the basis of marriage, which many agree it is today, then should all religions be forced to agree on the redefinition of marriage? If that is so, then should the State hold those religions, who may disagree, accountable? If religious people believe in traditional marriage then wouldn’t forcing them to accept a new definition be sanctioned as hatred too? No one is calling for legislation against those religious groups who sanction “Gay Marriage,” so why does it make sense to use law to force others into compliance?
Gay lifestyles have long been a part of society. Some societies were more accepting of these lifestyles than others. Today, a majority of people condemn violence against non-traditional relationships. Only a minuscule few would call for people to be arrested for participating in such a relationship. But is it hatred to not agree with such a relationship? In the recent past, these relationships were called “alternative lifestyles.” Doesn’t alternative mean different or non-traditional? This would imply that the people, in such a relationship are aware that their activities are a rejection of tradition. This is not to say that these people can’t live in society, it simply means that their relationships have different societal rules. Such as, in these relationship legal affairs are different, perhaps like a cohabitating couple, more than like a standard married couple. So why is that designation hateful?
The secularist movement which would have the phrases, “under God” or “In God We Trust” taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance, claim that they are doing so out of a protecting individuals from religion. One could then ask how these phrases harm anyone, or are these phrases hate filled? One way that some secularists explain that pronouncements of God are hateful is that they make some uncomfortable. This is true. Some beliefs make others uncomfortable. When Bill Maher says that religious believers are juvenile, some people might be uncomfortable by hearing Mr. Maher. I was once told by a very staunch Catholic that my beliefs would send me to hell. Hearing things we don’t agree with is often uncomfortable but is it hateful? For truly does Bill Maher’s discounting of religious belief or a believing Catholic firmly believing that I’m going to hell, do anyone even the slightest bit of harm?
The answer is that what others believe, so long as they don’t embrace violence, harms no one. If another’s beliefs are hurtful to us, is it the responsibility of the speaker to believe something less offensive? Perhaps it is more our responsibility to just grow up.
There are even more cases of political “hate” labeling. Critics of President Obama are often dismissed as haters. Why? Well obviously those who criticize the President are doing so based on race. Policy disagreements must be based in race, right? I mean really, discussions on debt are obviously racial…?
The truth of the matter is that the President’s race is an easy way to dismiss opposition. When other presidents were criticized does it make any sense that they were being scrutinized as white men or other identifying labels? Was Nixon criticized as a Quaker President? Was Ike criticized as a former Jehovah’s Witness? Reagan was of Irish ancestry, so was Kennedy or were all these Presidents just white guys? Can any comparative discussion of the Obama administration, and any other administration, be anything more than a conversation about identity?
When it comes down to the core of hate labeling; this tactic is disproportionately utilized on the left. “Hater” can often be easily interchangeable with conservative, anyone on the right or simply anyone who opposes an agenda on the left.
Hate labeling is an effective tool for two reasons. The first reason is that the left enjoys believing that they are undeniably righteous in their intentions, so those who oppose them must hate. Second, those in the middle are more comfortable defining arguments in simple terms. So the middle can more easily identify with an emotional argument.
However hate labeling doesn’t always work. Hopefully a growing number of people will realize that resorting to defining the other side as haters, shows only the weakness of an argument. We must be keenly aware of when those we support resort to this cheap tactic. More importantly, we must educate those, with whom we come in contact, of the pettiness of hate labeling.
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
