Leftwing Intolerance and Rightwing Hypocrisy

How can we test for rightwing hypocrisy? Here are some telltale signs.

By Michael Brown Published on February 11, 2017

In recent months, leftwing intolerance has been on full display, from the riots against free speech at Berkeley (the home of the free speech movement), to the boycotts of Trump-related fashion (designers not working with Melania and stores dropping Ivanka’s line), and from some entertainers receiving credible death threats if they performed at the inauguration to other entertainers getting blacklisted for performing.

Making this leftwing intolerance even more galling is that it is done in the name of tolerance and enlightenment and carried out in the name of progressiveness and open-mindedness, thereby putting leftwing hypocrisy on full display.

But the leftwing does not have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Those of us on the right have our fair share of it as well.

Telltale Signs

How can we test for rightwing hypocrisy? Here are some telltale signs.

You’re excited that President Trump is issuing executive orders but were upset when President Obama issued executive orders, calling it an abuse of power (or worse).

You believed every conspiratorial theory about Obama (he’s a Muslim; he wasn’t born in the States; he’s gay; he’s being groomed to be the antichrist — or at the least, the leader of the New World Order; he was not going to step down after 8 years but planned to call for martial law and take over the country), but you are aghast when people call Trump a despot or question his motivation.

It’s hard to deny that hypocrisy is just as rampant (or nearly as rampant) on the right as it is on the left.

You called Obama a self-centered narcissist when he frequently spoke about himself (even counting how many times he said “I” in a speech) but see Trump as a selfless man living solely for the betterment of his country.

You loved it when Rush and Hannity and other conservative hosts railed on Obama (virtually 24/7) but you feel the press is being totally unfair to Trump.

You were glad the few times when the Republican-led Congress stonewalled Obama but are outraged when the minority Democrats seek to stonewall Trump.

You commended the courts that stood against Obamacare, hailing them for their independent thinking, but you are appalled when the courts stand against Trump, pointing to these instances as perfect examples of judicial activism.

You saw Obama as a race-baiting agitator, inflaming ethnic and racial tensions, but you are outraged when people call Trump a divisive racist.

You laughed at the political cartoons mocking Obama’s appearance (including his big ears) but are critical of caricatures of Trump (including his big mop of hair).

You made ugly jokes about first lady Michelle Obama (even privately entertaining the idea that she was born male and is now a transgender female) but feel any negative comments about first lady Melania Trump are off limits, since it is wrong to criticize the president’s family.

You mocked the celebrities and athletes who supported Obama (or Hillary), telling them they should mind their own business and assuring them that America could care less about what they had to say about politics, but you commend the celebrities and athletes who stand with Trump, hailing them for their courage and praising them for getting involved in the political scene.

You applauded Trump when he refused to guarantee that he would accept the results of the election if he lost but jeered the Democrats who questioned the legitimacy of his electoral victory. You also would have been the first to declare Hillary’s presidency illegitimate if she had won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote.

You participated in conservative boycotts against companies like Target because of their aggressive LGBT activism but are mortified when liberals call for boycotts against companies (or individuals) with strong conservative values, accusing them of strong-armed tactics.

The Beam In Our Own Eyes

How have you scored so far? Have you uncovered any hypocrisy of your own?

I’m aware, of course, that some would argue that Obama’s executive orders were bad while Trump’s are good, or that it was the dominant, mainstream media that fawned over Obama but now seems intent on taking Trump down, or that the courts rightly ruled against Obama but wrongly ruled against Trump. Feel free to raise your objections on certain points.

In the end, though, it’s still hard to deny that hypocrisy is just as rampant (or nearly as rampant) on the right as it is on the left, and we do well to take the beam out of our own eyes — to cite Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:1-5 — so that we can help take the speck (or, beam) out of our neighbor’s eyes.

God hates unjust measures and unequal balances, but He loves fairness and equity and truth (read Proverbs for many examples). So, let’s do our best to be consistent in the stands that we take and in the standards that we use.

That way, we can focus on our ideological differences rather than caught up in superficial, politically-based emotional reactions.

That way, we can focus on the truth, and there is no effective weapon that can stand against the truth.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Gary

    I opposed Obama because of his philosophy and immorality. If Trump pursues policies that reflect a philosophy that I disagree with, or that are immoral, I will oppose him as well. The liberals are going to oppose Trump because they disagree with his policies, just like I opposed Obama because I disagreed with his policies. But that does not mean the liberals are justified because the policies they want are bad.

    • Anna

      Well, their policies leaned us toward being a “goat” nation assuming that you believe the Bible <3 no offense intended. For those among the Democrats that wanted what Soros proposed, which was the US Currency to no longer be the standard for the nations and to be replace by Chinese currency, than Obamas policies were necessary. For Democrats that don't care about "big picture" and the NWO – The Democratic party earning their votes ( votes of LBGT, Liberals, Femanists, Pro Choice etc…)with policies about sexual freedoms and the reformation of education. these things were just to attract the voters on issues that really don't matter to those leaders, Hillary and Obama, Bush ( who sided with Clinton in this election )… it simply earned the party that would protect the mission of the NWO the votes needed to keep those in power who would see it through. The "free food" tactics were so they could continue with the strategy as Soros put it, China becomes the engine and the US a drag, a healthy but painful process that must happen".

  • Anna

    Admonitions that I can imagine are valid for some, especially those that are not walking out the commands given to us by Jesus. Then again, there are many that are among those who believe in Jesus that are sinning in ways that are harmful to themselves ( drugs, gambling, drinking, promiscuity, homosexuality, stealing, etc.) The hope for a believer like me was, a reprieve. A chance for us to come out from under persecution and have so many laws imposed upon us that pose a danger to our ability to raise out family and do the kingdom work. It obviously isn’t without extreme opposition, but I think that many of us less vocal on politics are simply expecting alignment with Israel, a chance to be a sheep nation, laborers to the field, and harvest time!!!! Hurry <3

    • Dean Bruckner

      Spot us n. Without repentance, it is just a delay in the inevitable judgment.

  • Admiral Acbon

    I’ve heard that Trump’s executive orders are instructing agencies to carry out existing federal law. If this is true, they are an entirely different animal than the ones Obama signed.

    • Dean Bruckner

      It’s a trap! Dr. Brown’s uninformed, straw man arguments, that is.

    • Rick20033

      Yes, Dr. Brown’s argument is like saying, “Robbers use guns. Policemen use guns. Therefore, Robbers and policemen are morally equivalent and you’re a hypocrite if you say otherwise.”

  • Dean Bruckner

    What a total crock. This is the most inaccurate column by Dr. Brown that I have ever read.

    Both men are flawed, true, but Barack Obama hates America and us, and fought against us. Trump loves America and is willing to fight for us. He is fighting for us!

    This article should be tied to two millstones and deep-sixed into the Mariana Trench. Major fail.

    • Husband of the Year

      Never trust someone who tries act like they are above the fray. Criticizing Trump is perfectly legitimate, but moral equivalency with the left is irresponsible.

  • Linda

    Not a single unsaved soul trying to find their way in this world can take in any of the Gospel truths that people on the right say they stand for. Their words and dispositions are so loud and full of hate and self-righteousness that not one ounce of the love of the Lord spills over. The world is to know we are Christians by our love. The vocal Clinton and Obama haters/lie believers (some examples listed above by Michael Brown) have severely damaged the Kingdom in America.

    • Gary

      I disagree. Liberals are unsaved, but they are not trying to find their way, they think they have already found it. They have rejected the God of the Bible. If they believe in a god, it is one that endorses the same sins they like to partake of. Your theory that being critical of liberals, like Clinton and Obama, is driving people away is not true. They are already away. They showed up away.

      • Husband of the Year

        Christians, conservatives, libertarians, people of the right need to stop assuming leftists are acting in good faith.

    • Dean Bruckner

      Linda from10 days ago, about Donald and Ivanka Trump:

      “There is something very, very strange about this relationship. I don’t know any other grown woman, let alone a mother of three, who spends so much time around her father. Same goes for the two sons. There’s something abnormal about this.”

      Linda today:

      “The vocal Clinton and Obama haters/lie believers have severely damaged the Kingdom in America.”

      Pot, meet kettle.

      Consider this: there is considerably more evidence of President Obama’s Muslim belief than anything Donald Trump has provided about any inappropriateness in his relationship with his daughter, including a statement from then-candidate Obama’s own lips on national television: “[John McCain] hasn’t made an issue of my Muslim faith.” This through makes no sense at all if the subject is Christian faith, because why would McCain have made an issue of that?

      In spite of this, and a hundred other evidences of Barack Obama’s hidden Muslim belief, you call us with similar suspicions and beliefs about that to be “lie believers,” yet you give yourself a total pass when you exercise the same level of suspicion based on even less evidence. I don’t know Donald Trump, and I am not saying that your woman’s intuition is worthless. But I give you latitude that you and Dr. Brown high-handedly refuse to give to me and others who know something of Islam.

      Further, regarding this so called “lie” of Obama’s crypto-Islam, I conclude that however well intentioned you may be, you are not in command of the facts about either President Obama or the religio-political tyranny that is Islam.

      • Linda

        Wow, I’m being tracked now? And I never said there was anything sexual in their relationship, I don’t even suspect that. I said the amount of time an adult woman is spending with her father is abnormal. I also said the same goes for the two sons. When they all have spouses and young children at home it is even more bizarre. You are the one who heard “incest”. This is an example of how fake news is the lifeblood of the Trump cult.

        • Dean Bruckner

          So you use the words “very, very strange” and “abnormal” and mean really nothing, and I use the word “inappropriate” and mean everything? No way! You are covering your tracks when your double standards are exposed.

          Which is more “very, very strange” and “abnormal,” spending lots of time with one’s daughter in an utterly nons3xual manner as you so conveniently insist you mean, or sending a quarter BILLION dollars under cover of night on the last day of one’s presidency to a pseudo government of Muslim terrorists in Palestine, where it can be used to kill more Jews and support families of Muslim terrorists who cut girls’ throats and get filled full of lead?

          Your hypocrisy and self unaware thinking should give you pause to reconsider.

          • Linda

            You’re far too angry to hear anybody out and to be heard yourself.

          • Dean Bruckner

            Bigot – someone who is winning an argument with a liberal.

            Congrats, you have now added “angry” and “cult-like” to this list of convenient escapes of Progressives from reasoned argument, which is exactly what I have offered. Projection is never healthy, and yet you seem to be neck deep in it, attributing anger to me when the name calling is coming from you.

  • Adriane Weatherford

    Sweetie, if you have run this article by me I’d have told you to burn it and start again. But, Alas!

    • Rick20033

      I agree that reading this was a surreal experience. It is so poorly thought out that I, too, had a very difficult time believing Dr. Brown wrote it. I even suggested in my comment that he had bumped his head, and then scrolled down and read your comment where you say the same! He is clearly trying to be fair, but he is really just equating unequal things.

  • ARB

    “You’re excited that President Trump is issuing executive orders but were upset when President Obama issued executive orders, calling it an abuse of power (or worse).”
    Not all executive orders are made the same. That said, I still don’t like Trump’s EOs, especially the hand-me-downs.

    “You called Obama a self-centered narcissist…”
    Does anyone *really* think Trump is not narcissistic? He’s probably five times the narcissist that Obama is (and that’s saying something); he just ties his narcissism to “winning” instead of being the social justice messiah. One of these two leads to crackdowns on religious liberty and nuns being forced into culpability for abortions, and the other leads to striving to do the absolute best for his constituency in everything.

    “You loved it when Rush and Hannity…”
    The “press” you speak of is 98% of the media; the handful of conservative pundits you talk about are the remaining 2%. Rooting for the underdog conservative media is natural when 98% of the media is absolutely full of crap; and to do so is to favor a less biased media as a whole, even though individual members will still have their own biases.

    “You saw Obama as a race-baiting agitator, inflaming…”
    That’s because Obama WAS a race-baiting agitator whose presidency’s soft stance on violent rioters induced the biggest spout of racial conflict in a great many years, and Trump isn’t a racist, he just speaks with the tongue of an idiot instead of the traditional politician’s tongue of the serpent.

    “You laughed at the political cartoons mocking…”
    For the record, I didn’t find the Obama cartoons funny and I do find some of the better Trump ones funny. It’s hard to laugh in bad times, and much easier in better ones.

    “You made ugly jokes about first lady…”
    The only joke I made about Michelle Obama was that her getting-kids-active-and-eating-healthy campaign was a complete flop. Ugly jokes about women aren’t something I make or laugh at.

    “You mocked the celebrities and athletes who…”
    Again, this goes back to the ridiculous bias in media, but frankly, who are these celebrities endorsing Trump? I literally can’t think of one. I mean, Scott Adams of Dilbert fame gets close, but I wasn’t convinced he was even rooting for Trump so much as using him as an example of skillful persuasion.

    “You participated in conservative boycotts against companies…”
    This is, again, silly, based on extant corporate biases. The left is calling for boycotts against companies for not actively advocating for their causes. The right is calling for boycotts against companies that hit them over the head with leftist messaging. The latter is an organized form of “I’d rather not get hit in the head again, thank you very much,” while the former is acting to punish of thoughtcrime in the most Orwellian neighbor-against-neighbor manner.

    • Jim Walker

      Yes, MSM and even in parts of Fox are the opposition party to Trump. I don’t even say Hannity and Rush are the 2%. more like 0.02%.
      Just simply make a google search and you are flooded by the barrage of half truth news, from USA to Europe to Asia.
      I’m in Asia and all sing the same tune, directly,indirectly and/or insinuating. Every word every move Trump makes they will twist and turn to make him the monster that he is not. 99% of my FB friends here in Asia are Anti-Trump.
      One of the first EO was to stop US funding abortions to the outside world. Speaks volumes about the man.
      I enter supporting Hillary, I disliked Trump a lot, only to come out supporting him.

  • Patrick Hutton

    Excellent article.

    • Husband of the Year

      Terrible article. Enables the dangerous, communist left.

    • Wayne Cook

      Nope. Disgusting. I bet you want to move to Canada.

    • Dean Bruckner

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • Donald McLaughlin

    Michael, While you make a good point, I do have to point out that opposing Obama on some things, but praising Trump for the same thing does not necessarily translate to hypocrisy. For example, on executive orders. Many of us who expressed concern about several of Obama’s EO’s were basing our concern that he was using EO’s to bypass the Congress and in some cases, ignore parts of laws passed by Congress that he himself signed (ie, parts of Obamacare that he opted to NOT enforce). So far, we haven’t seen any illegal or unconstitutional EO’s issued by Trump (and no, I don’t consider the EO immigration ban unconstitutional and I’m in good company on that-even among several of your fellow contributors here on The Stream)…but if he did, yes, we’d speak up!

    • Rick20033

      Dr. Brown’s executive order argument is like saying, “Robbers use guns. Policemen use guns. Therefore, Robbers and policemen are morally equivalent and you’re a hypocrite if you say otherwise.”

      • Dean Bruckner

        Spot on!

      • Husband of the Year

        This is why the left wins. People like Dr. Brown have allowed this to happen since the 1960s!

  • Rick20033

    Dr. Brown, I like you very much, but I think you must have seriously bumped your head before penning this. And you have already attempted to undercut opposition to your conclusions by characterizing them as people with “ruffled feathers” who just don’t want to hear what “needs to be said.” The reality is that your argument is textbook false equivalence almost throughout. It reminds me of when a teacher has her own child in the room and, in an attempt to avoid favoritism, is grossly unfair to her own child.

    “You’re excited that President Trump is issuing executive orders but were upset when President Obama issued executive orders, calling it an abuse of power (or worse).”
    This ignores the reality that there is a proper use for executive orders and an improper use for them. It is simply a fact that Obama’s “pen and phone” approach to government was an example of unlawful overreach. Nothing the current president has done is unlawful.

    “You called Obama a self-centered narcissist when he frequently spoke about himself (even counting how many times he said ‘I’ in a speech) but see Trump as a selfless man living solely for the betterment of his country.”
    This mixes two different things. Obama was certainly a self-centered narcissist (fortunately for us, since he has all but destroyed the Democrat Party). The current president has an over-sized ego, but an over-sized ego isn’t the same as narcissism. President Trump is no ideologue. If he became president simply to boost his ego, he wouldn’t be taking on the establishment and the media. Like John McCain, he would be cozying up to them.

    “You loved it when Rush and Hannity and other conservative hosts railed on Obama (virtually 24/7) but you feel the press is being totally unfair to Trump.”
    This confuses opinion shows with allegedly objective news sources.

    “You were glad the few times when the Republican-led Congress stonewalled Obama but are outraged when the minority Democrats seek to stonewall Trump.”
    Again, this suggests a false moral equivalence. It is good to stop evil, and bad to stop good. Unless you went to sleep last night believing in objective morality and woke up a relativist, this accusation of hypocrisy is nonsense for someone with your Christian worldview.

    “You commended the courts that stood against Obamacare, hailing them for their independent thinking, but you are appalled when the courts stand against Trump, pointing to these instances as perfect examples of judicial activism.”
    Obamacare is obviously and objectively unconstitutional. Opposing it was simply being honest about the Constitution (which is more than what Justice Roberts could manage to do). The judges that stopped the president’s temporary travel ban from 7 countries DID engage in nothing more than judicial activism. They wished to stop the president because they disagreed with him politically, so they abused their authority in order to make him do what they wanted. Why do you think the left went judge shopping the way they did?

    “You saw Obama as a race-baiting agitator, inflaming ethnic and racial tensions, but you are outraged when people call Trump a divisive racist.”
    Obama IS a race-baiting agitator who inflamed ethnic and racial tensions. This is observably true. There is absolutely no evidence that Donald Trump is a racist. The standard that would conclude he is a racist would also conclude that you hate homosexuals. Do you?

    “You mocked the celebrities and athletes who supported Obama (or Hillary), telling them they should mind their own business and assuring them that America could care less about what they had to say about politics, but you commend the celebrities and athletes who stand with Trump, hailing them for their courage and praising them for getting involved in the political scene.”
    Is there an outbreak of Trump support among celebrities that I have somehow overlooked? The tiny, tiiiny number of celebrities who support him ARE demonstrating courage by doing so. They will pay a price for breaking with the pack. It is a small thing for us to say in response, “Good on you, sir/ma’am.”

    “You applauded Trump when he refused to guarantee that he would accept the results of the election if he lost, but jeered the Democrats who questioned the legitimacy of his electoral victory.”
    This is an example of the imprecision that is throughout your piece. He didn’t say he wouldn’t accept the results of the election if he lost. He said he would have to wait and see if there were any suspicious circumstances surrounding his loss. However, the Democrats insisted loudly and repeatedly that accepting the results of an election is a long and proud tradition and that it is dangerous to refuse to do so. I would think an op-ed that claims to be speaking to hypocrisy would have mentioned that. There are no suspicious circumstances surrounding Hillary’s loss, so there is no hypocrisy on the right when it comes to this matter.

    “In the end, though, it’s still hard to deny that hypocrisy is just as rampant (or nearly as rampant) on the right as it is on the left.”
    The fact that you did such a poor job of finding examples of it demonstrates that it is, on the contrary, very easy indeed to deny it.

    “God hates unjust measures and unequal balances, but He loves fairness and equity and truth (read Proverbs for many examples). So, let’s do our best to be consistent in the stands that we take and in the standards that we use.”
    I think that is an excellent idea. I highly recommend it to you.

    • TimR

      Rick, you pretty much spanked Dr. Brown with that post. I actually was agreeing with most of what Brown was saying till you threw in the differences so clearly.

      • Rick20033

        Thanks. I am still amazed that he wrote this. It compares apples with oranges throughout and then accuses people of hypocrisy if they don’t agree that apples and oranges are the same thing.

        • Dean Bruckner

          Exactly!

        • Husband of the Year

          He effectively acted like the teacher who punishes the child who stood up for himself, but refuses to do anything about the bully. Very dangerous behaviour!

          • Wayne Cook

            Agreed. Having experienced same, I know the feeling intimately.

      • Dean Bruckner

        He did indeed, but it needed to be done.

      • Husband of the Year

        Moderates will ultimately always run cover for the left.

    • Dean Bruckner

      +10! Well done, sir!

      • Wayne Cook

        Yep.

    • Jäger

      Had I bothered to read a little further and came upon your response, I could have saved myself the time of rattling off my own. Well done: precise, illustrative, and to the point.

      • Rick20033

        I’m glad you wrote yours. It was well done and different enough from mine. Several people here have identified the serious flaws in Dr. Brown’s op-ed. That’s good. The reception he is receiving on his FB page is, sadly, much more supportive. Apparently, logic isn’t as popular among that crowd. Discouraging.

        • Husband of the Year

          Facebook enables cheerleaders much more than disqus. That’s why so many cowardly websites are removing their comment sections.

    • Husband of the Year

      Mostly agree. Obama already broke the rules. There’s no reason to play fair, when the other side refuses to do so, especially when the future of western civilization is at stake.

    • Wayne Cook

      Breitbart and Heritage logged 42 federal offenses by Obama. Brown’s equivalence is starkly overdone.

      • Rick20033

        Yes, it’s uncharacteristically absurd. It reads like he came up with his conclusion (conservatives are hypocrites) prior to giving any thought whatsoever to whether there is any evidence for the conclusion. Finding that there wasn’t any, he came up with..this.

    • Resister

      “The current president has an over-sized ego, but an over-sized ego isn’t the same as narcissism.” That cracked me up! Trump is a narcissist of the first order! Dr. Brown is full of it here but you can’t come up with this type of argument and make a case against Brown’s!

      • Rick20033

        Resister, you obviously don’t know what a narcissist is. Laughter isn’t an argument, champ. Or, to respond to you in your own language:
        Your post cracked me up! You don’t know what a narcissist is! You can’t come up with this type of an argument and make a case against what I’ve said!

        • Resister

          Only members of the cult don’t think Trump is a narcissist. It’s obvious to everyone else.

          • Rick20033

            Only those who don’t know what a narcissist is use it as an ad hominem attack. Crack a book.

          • Resister

            nar·cis·sist
            ˈnärsəsəst/Submit
            noun
            a person who has an excessive interest in or admiration of themselves.
            “narcissists who think the world revolves around them”

            Stating a fact is not an ad hominem attack it’s just the way it is. You’re the one that needs to crack a book! Trump has every trait needed to be labeled a narcissist.

          • Rick20033

            Noun
            (en-noun)
            A narcissist.
            * 1996 , Susan B. Gall, Bernard Beins, Alan Feldman, The Gale encyclopedia of psychology (page 247)
            Because narcissistics cannot handle failure, they will take great lengths to avoid risks and situations in which defeat is a possibility.

            Does Donald Trump go to great lengths to avoid risks and situations in which defeat is a possibility? Obviously not.

            “As adjectives the difference between narcissistic and conceited is that narcissistic is having an inflated idea of one’s own importance while conceited is having an excessively favorable opinion of one’s abilities, appearance, etc; vain and egotistical.”

            Donald Trump is conceited, not narcissistic. And you keep embarrassing yourself because you can’t just accept the fact that you’re wrong.

          • Resister

            Yeah you must be right because Trump handles failure wonderfully!

          • anne55

            I copied and pasted Mayo Clinic’s definition of narcissism in another post above. People will have to look at that, from a well-respected medical clinic, and decide for themselves who meets the definition.

          • Resister

            Trump is a narcissist and like many narcissists that is not his only personally disorder. The poster above seems to think that if you are conceited that excludes the label narcissist. That’s nutty! Every narcissist is conceited! It’s part of the pathology! He also seems to think that Trump is excluded because he supposedly lacks the marker that he is afraid of failure. His past points out that that is not the case. He always covers his side of a deal and let’s others in those deals take most if not all of the risk. That’s also where his other (of many) character flaw, being a pathological liar, comes to the rescue! He never has to face failure because he just never admits failure on any level. You can’t put Trump’s nuttiness in just one box!

      • anne55

        I appreciated Dr. Brown’s thoughts. It is this kind of thinking that allows people to talk and start to really hear each other. To feel acknowledged. To feel that compromise on issues is a real possibility and hope. Thank you, Dr. Brown! Lincoln said, “A house divided cannot stand.” It gives me hope to read fair-minded words — hope that maybe our nation can heal yet.

  • John

    Dr. Brown, Thank you for your thoughts. I would like to remind you of 1 Cor 4:3-5. You appear to be implying that we, as Christians, should evaluate ourselves and correct our behavior accordingly. One problem: we are not qualified to judge and evaluate even ourselves. Evaluation is Jesus’ job. Not yours or ours.

  • Jäger

    At the risk of being accused of moral equivalism, it seems we’re supposed to believe that the responses from conservatives and regressive progressives have been equal in both scope and extent.

    Are Executive Orders undoing previous Executive Orders REALLY no different than what Obama did while going around Congress? If the author can point out to me what Trump Executive Orders are similar to Obama’s going around Congress (his illegal alien amnesties for one example), I would be interested if he would point them out, because I haven’t seen them. I’m not saying he won’t – that is a concern of mine – but the argument that “both have issued Executive Orders” is sophomoric. It’s not that they’re issued, nor even the number issued, but WHAT those orders do.

    Were there REALLY just as many birthers and conspiracy theorists on the right as there are people now screaming about the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency, Russian hacking, the popular vote, etc?

    Does the author REALLY want to suggest that the media treatment of Trump both before and after the election is simply no different than what Obama got? REALLY?

    Does the author REALLY think the focus on Trump’s family, his children is simply no different than what Obama’s family got?

    Does the author REALLY want me to believe that the response and attitude of the entertainment industry and celebrities (I shake my head that they’re our “cultural leaders”) towards the presidency of Obama is no different than what we are now seeing in their response to Trump’s presidency?

    Don’t think so. In fact, not even close. Particularly when the attacks on family are concerned.

    I am not a fan of Trump; was rather appalled when he won the nomination for the GOP in fact. The one thing he had going for him was the alternative was the Clinton Crime Cartel and a continuation of Obama’s lawless presidency – which was aided and abetted by the Republican leadership, I will be the first to point out.

    To suggest that it is just more of the same, however, appears to be deliberately myopic to me. I am all for, 100% calling out all hypocrisy in the politics of our country. It is poisonous and stifles debate in the arena of ideas and discourse.

    What is going on now verges on near lawlessness in some areas, with little other than a pretense of objectivity left in other areas – journalism in particular. By all means warn of hypocrisy; but don’t pretend that what is going on now is really no different than what went on during the Obama presidency.

    Unless you want to tell me about Tea Party followers rioting in the streets, preventing people from speaking, etc., of course. If I missed that, fill me in on it. Because in my 40+ years of adult life, I have never seen anything like this, from either side of the political spectrum.

    • Husband of the Year

      Moderates are always worse, and much more dangerous than so called “extremists.” The author proved that in this article. Moderates on the nominal right will always defend the left.

      • Rick20033

        Dr. Brown isn’t remotely a moderate. This op-ed is bizarrely out of character.

      • Wayne Cook

        That’s exactly what happened. Extrapolated guilt by the author. Yawn.

    • Wayne Cook

      Touche…I think Brown has taken other people’s problems on his shoulders…disgusting comparisons.

  • Husband of the Year

    Nah. During Obama eight year term, the left showed the depths of their depravity more than almost any other time since World War II. They let the mask slip, and laid bare what they would do if they ever achieved complete power. Never again, and no mercy.

  • Wayne Cook

    Yeah, Mike…right.

  • Otho Cooley

    Sadly while there are inconsistencies on both liberal and conservative side, liberal thinking is totally corrupted. I never heard Republicans as a group boo God or Israel. However, I heard and saw both at the Democratic Convention on the television screen. When women marched, the liberals used profanity and explosive language to express their anger. On the other hand, women who marched for life did so with dignity and respect for law. There was no rioting and destruction of property with the conservative people.

    There is a distinct difference between those who hold liberal viewpoints as compared to conservative values. Liberals glorify abortion as a compassionate way to care for women. On the contrary, conservatives detest the destruction of life. Liberals encourage alternate lifestyles with so-called tolerance for those who flaunt the homosexual choice. While no hatred should be expressed, there should be wisdom and honesty to declare that God will deliver from this destructive lifestyle that leads to eternal separation from God.

    Yes, there is much to be done on the conservative side to improve attitudes and behavior. However, liberal intolerance and hypocrisy cannot be corrected due to the fact that they have no love for the truth. Unfortunately, they have been sent a strong delusion and will continue to believe a lie. (II Thessalonians 2:10-11)

    • anne55

      “…liberal intolerance and hypocrisy cannot be corrected due to the fact that they have no love for the truth…” This is simply not true. It might even meet the definition of ‘persecution’ of others, i.e., hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.

      • Otho Cooley

        Yes, there will continue to be lies, manipulation, persecution and other forms of hatred. This all springs from their father the devil. There is no truth in him. When Christ spoke to the religious hierarchy in His day, He located their problem. Although there was no lack of knowledge of the Law of Moses or of the righteous demands of this Law, they twisted and distorted the meanings. The source of the problem was their relationship with God which was only based on tradition rather than truth. For this reason Jesus stated, “You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do….” (John 8:44)

        Liberals are a parallel to this truth. Truth is liberating while lies foster deception and bondage. Christ is the liberator of all those who come to Him in repentance and humility. There is neither in the liberal agenda; therefore, they cannot change because they refuse to face the truth.

  • Ethan Leach

    The biggest problem I have with the public and media treatment of Trump is the substance of the attacks. I support the president’s use of executive orders to enforce federal law, but I was against President Obama’s use of executive orders to violate current law (such as when he instructed the attorney general not to enforce the southern border, and then sued the state of Arizona when they tried to enforce the border on their own).

    I agree that both Obama and Trump show signs of narcissism, but it’s telling when the mainstream media largely ignored Obama’s narcissism and then highlighted Trump’s.

    I think it’s dangerous to ascribe motive to a president’s actions, but instead of doing that, we can look at the actions themselves. It was President Obama who refused to condemn the actions of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. It was President Obama who downplayed the violence from Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street, saying that they were simply protesters voicing their concerns.

    When it comes to race relations, it was President Obama who drew attention to Trayvon Martin’s race, saying that if he had a son, he could have looked like Trayvon. Obama further inflamed tensions by suggesting that the deaths of Michael Brown and Freddie Gray were influenced by race.

    In reference to Congress stonewalling the president’s agenda, it again matters what it is that they’re trying to stop. Republicans used the stonewalling tactic to try to stop the passage of Obamacare. Democrats may have legitimate concerns about President Trump’s agenda, but it’s not constructive for them to say that they’re not going to work with Republicans regardless of the issues.

    As far as celebrity endorsements, any American celebrities endorsing Republican politicians are going against the liberal politics of Hollywood. It’s refreshing to hear conservative celebrities willing to speak up, rather than going along with the politics of their peers.

    • anne55

      This is from Mayo Clinic and is a definition of narcissism: DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:

      Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
      Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
      Exaggerating your achievements and talents
      Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
      Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people
      Requiring constant admiration
      Having a sense of entitlement
      Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations
      Taking advantage of others to get what you want
      Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
      Being envious of others and believing others envy you
      Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner

      I just don’t, in my wildest dreams, see Obama as meeting any of this criteria. Period. I have to speak up for him. The man I observed over 8 years was kind, loving, a great family man, cried when children were massacred at Sandy Hook (and at other times), spoke slowly and thoughtfully, was not impulsive in the least and tried very hard.

      • Dean Bruckner

        None so blind. You are deceived from beginning to end.

        • anne55

          I have a background in mental health. Stating this about Obama is just plain wrong. You may not have liked him or agreed with his policy, but don’t assign this kind of a label to him either.

    • anne55

      “I support the president’s use of executive orders to enforce federal law, but I was against President Obama’s use of executive orders to violate current law.” Some argue that Trump’s immigration ban violates current laws.

      • Dean Bruckner

        It cannot. The Constitution and then immigration statute are 100% behind that action.

  • Andrew Moffat

    I don’t think anyone can claim that Michael Brown is a liberal, or that he supports their side of the argument. I believe he would fall squarely on the right side of the spectrum on the issues he has used as examples here. What I think he is doing is challenging those of us on the right to make sure that we keep ourselves in check and take the higher road as we stand for what we believe is right and true. The last thing we want to do is say, “here are our ideas and excuse the transgressions we’ve committed in fighting for them because we’re right.” That only adds fuel to the left’s fire and steels them up for what they want to do in return. Whether or not you agree with Brown’s examples, be open enough to see that we are not as lily white as we would like to think as we state our side of the argument. Doing that allows a humility of heart that gives the truth we stand for far more strength than the current tone of anger rampant among both the left and the right. It is then that we can most effectively progress the real strength of our ideas clear of bias and malice putting them forth with the strength of clarity that they deserve.

    • Dean Bruckner

      They hate us and would do away with us if they could. Going meekly to their ovens blaming ourselves is a recipe for another Holocaust.

      • Andrew Moffat

        I am not suggesting we go meekly anywhere, or that we simply blame ourselves. I am suggesting we be strong enough to admit our own faults and approach the other side with humility which is, in the end, a position of strength. They are responsible for their faults, we are responsible for ours. But we look like fools if we can’t see past our own noses.

    • anne55

      I’ve tried to post a response to Dean’s comment on the Holocaust below. I am being censored for some unknown reason. I don’t see a parallel here to Germany. My husband’s family live through this period in Germany’s history. There is just no comparison to 6 million Jews dying in concentration camps and Dean, your statement that this could precipitate another Holocaust.

      • Dean Bruckner

        The Stream’s algorithm flags the word N@zi (when you spell it normally) and probably H1tler too (also when spelled normally).

        On topic, failing to see the parallels between the Third Reich and today’s Progressives, including 60 million babies murdered in this country alone, because they are “life unworthy of life,” is to be blind and to court repeating what happened in Germany here.

  • David Marshall

    While it is healthy to ask these questions, and I’m glad Michael is asking them, I think Christian conservatives are, by and large, being more critical than the Left generally was under Obama.

    Most Christians I know are quite alive to Trump’s narcissism, even if they (reluctantly, in most cases) voted for him.

    No one claims that all executive orders are wrong. Executive orders which seek to overthrow or ignore the law are wrong.

    Hannity and Rush have long bored me, especially the former. We need a public Christian voice more nuanced and wise, like Michael Medved, who is Jewish. National Review has served that role in some ways, as an ecumenical body.

    The Democrats clearly are stonewalling much more, as Michael clearly recognizes. And stonewalling depends on context: is the president seeking to do good, or evil?

    A healthy challenge. I won’t claim that I am never guilty of the sin MIchael warns against — I believe I am, sometimes. But the Left has just gone absolutely nuts. We on the right should strive not only to do better than them in keeping our heads on on a policy level, but also by personally befriending our lunatic friends, and let them know we’re not really their enemies. however much we disagree.

    • anne55

      I agree with you about conservatives being more critical! The Tea Party was VERY critical of Obama and worked to stop him at every turn. I think Dems have learned this lesson well at this point.

      • Dean Bruckner

        Pardon me, but you seem to hold most, if not all, of the Progressive positions on issues. May I ask, what are your views on abortion and what is commonly called gay marriage?

        • anne55

          I am totally accepting of gay marriage. First, judge not lest yea be judge. Who am I to say what is wrong or right? If you are born gay or lesbian, no law is going to change that. This has existed throughout history as well as in the animal world. What is wrong is denying LBGTQ people basic human rights, civil rights. If you don’t agree with it, then don’t live that life style. And, I am totally convinced that one cannot “become” gay simply by association with someone that is. Your basic sexuality is “your’s” from the start. Abortion? I certainly don’t condone it as a form of birth control. But neither would I want to make that decision for another woman and force it on her. There are sometimes good reasons for an abortion. I would want it done as soon as possible after conception for obvious reasons. Let me point out that 20% of pregnancies spontaneously abort in nature. That is 1 in 5. And, let me ask the pro-lifers (which I prefer to call ant-abortionists), why they call themselves pro-life but so often seem to be against other things I would also consider pro-life? Such as against the death penalty? Or against helping refugee children in dire circumstances? And 50% of refugees are children. Or against contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies (and hence the risk of abortion)….and on and on….

          • Dean Bruckner

            Thanks for your reply. I hope that God makes himself and his word real to you, and opens your eyes to the truth. Best regards, Dean

          • anne55

            I’d still be interested in your opinion on my questions about other aspects I consider “pro-life” (at the end of my comment above).

          • Dean Bruckner

            Being pro-life is necessarily being pro-truth and pro-love. Sometimes it appears that obeying the truth and acting in love are in tension, but in reality they are not.
            You may have heard that scientists are looking for the ultimate equation, the one unifying law that ties everything in the universe together. It exists, but they are looking in the wrong place. It is not physical, but moral and spiritual. There are things we can’t not know. For example, we can’t not know it is wicked to pierce the skull of a defenseless living baby in the womb, vacuum out its brains and crush its skull. The problem is not that we do not know, but that we do know, and wish we didn’t. You can read more about this in J. Budziszewski’s essay The Revenge of Conscience at FirstThings(dot)com.
            It’s interesting that your argument against pro-lifers relies on a premise that life is infinitely valuable. Otherwise, why would it be a problem to take a murderer’s life while defending a preborn baby’s life. You are correct, mostly. Here is a fuller application of this principle: A pre-born baby’s life is either infinitely important, or not important at all. The one that you cannot say is that is moderately important. Either it is another human being, with the same moral weight as you or me, or it has no moral weight, like an appendix or a hangnail. Again, we know the truth, but pretend we don’t. We confuse simple with easy. It is simple to know that we ought to defend the baby’s life with all that we are, but it may be very difficult to do so. That is why motherhood should be held in high honor, because it requires self-sacrifice.
            But saying that life is infinitely valuable is not the whole story. We must frame the question with two considerations: who is the author of life, and what is the purpose of life.
            Christians, the group that by far makes up most pro-lifers in this nation, see that God is the author of life, and only he has authority to take it. They also see that the purpose of life is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever. The questions you ask fall into place in this framework. Conversely, without God, nothing in the universe makes sense. There is no transcendent moral or ethic, no knowledge of our origin (particles to people evolution is a total crock), no idea of our ultimate destiny, no meaning, and no hope.
            If God is the author of life, he has authority to take it. Christians, and Orthodox Jews to my knowledge, believe God himself instituted capital punishment for murder and delegated it to human government. This is known as the Covenant of Noah, described in Genesis chapter 9. The image of God in people is so sacred that a person who defaces and destroys that image must pay with his or her own life. No other penalty is suitable. Practically speaking, societies are healthier when murder is punished by the death penalty. Done promptly and consistently and ethically, it prevents recidivism and deters murder. It is not sufficient in itself to create a kind society, but it is necessary to avoid the breakdown of a kind society.
            Further, if the purpose of life is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, then life does not justify itself; merely the existence of a life does not justify its continuance in every case. If God decides, for example, that for the sake of his glory and his kingdom, to allow Christians to be killed by those who hate them, our answer should be the same as that of Abraham Lincoln, quoting the Bible: “The judgments of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether.” There are higher purposes than life itself.
            Every Christian also knows that he or she is not the Messiah. No Christian, either working individually or in concert, can right every wrong or solve every problem. But God has given responsibility first to individuals, then families, then churches and communities, to provide and protect their own as well as to help those in need from outside. The apostle Paul underscores both of these, by saying that “if a man will not provide for his own household, he is worse than an unbeliever and has denied the [Christian] faith.” He also writes that the Apostle Peter’s one request of him was “to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.”
            So to circle back to your question: the term “pro-life” is useful, but not as a complete ethic. A better description is the one the Bible offers: to fear God. In other words, to reserve an awesome respect for the Creator that results in praise, thanks and humble obedience. There is real evil in the world, and the death penalty is a necessary if regrettable part of dealing with it.
            There is poverty and oppression in the world, but we must first provide for our own, but with God’s help find a way to do what we can to help others who are in need. To focus merely on “the children” is a mistake, because children belong in families, ideally with their own mother and father. To allow foreign children into the country with parents who will eagerly kill and enslave our own children is to ignore the reality of evil and fail in our responsibility.
            With contraception, the fundamental premise is that my body is my own and God has no part of any of my use of it. No Christian can accept that premise. As a protestant Christian, I have held to the view that there is a place for contraception, but seeing the poisonous fruit of the sexual revolution, I am not so sure.
            Regarding “health care as a human right,” that is a slippery slope. If I see a newborn baby lying in an open field, I have a moral obligation to rescue it, unless doing so will endanger my life. I may choose to risk my own life to save her–another legacy of the Christian world view of the value of sacrificing one’s life for a greater good. If a woman has a baby inside her, she has a moral obligation to carry that baby to delivery and assist in providing for him, whether by her own work or through the help of others, or both. There is sacrifice there too. But using “health care is a human right” to offer free sex change operations by compelling surgeons and medical personnel to perform these surgeries, either for pay or for pretend pay (socialism), against their will–as the Obama administration clamored to do–is to ignore the surgeon and medical personnel’s right to liberty and to conscience.
            The fundamental truth is that even though you and I are not the Messiah–the Savior and Restorer of the World–Jesus Christ IS the Messiah. He and only he provides the only way out of this huge mess humanity is in. He is the only place, the only person, where love and truth meet and live together in perfect harmony. He is, in the words of Isaiah the prophet (written 700 years before his birth), the “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” He died for our sins and rose from the dead–the most well documented fact of ancient history–to guarantee all of these claims.
            So if I have to choose between the title “pro-life” and “God-fearer,” I choose the latter, because it includes the former.

          • Dean Bruckner

            By the way, if you’re looking for consistency, then “pro-choice” is no refuge. How many abortion advocates vehemently deny the right of parents to choose schools for their children who were not aborted? Or the right of medical professionals to choose whether or not to perform abortions? Or the right of Americans to choose whether or not to purchase health care?

            The fundamental divide is not between pro-life and anti-life, or between pro-choice or anti-choice; it is between those who fear God and those who do not.

          • Dean Bruckner

            ..

          • Dean Bruckner

            The Stream’s flagging algorithms are frustrating. Using the same words in the comments that are used in the article gets the comment sent into purgatory.

          • Dean Bruckner

            Being pro-life is necessarily being pro-truth and pro-love. Sometimes it appears that obeying the truth and acting in love are in tension, but in reality they are not.

            You may have heard that scientists are looking for the ultimate equation, the one unifying law that ties everything in the universe together. It exists, but they are looking in the wrong place. It is not physical, but moral and spiritual. There are things we can’t not know. For example, we can’t not know it is wicked to pierce the skull of a defenseless living baby in the womb, vacuum out its brains and crush its skull. The problem is not that we do not know, but that we do know, and wish we didn’t. You can read more about this in J. Budziszewski’s essay The Revenge of Conscience at FirstThings(dot)com.

            It’s interesting that your argument against pro-lifers relies on a premise that life is infinitely valuable. Otherwise, why would it be a problem to take a murderer’s life while defending a preborn baby’s life? In this, you are correct, mostly.

            Here is a fuller application of this principle: A pre-born baby’s life is either infinitely important, or not important at all. The one that you cannot say is that is moderately important. Either it is another human being, with the same moral weight as you or me, or it has no moral weight, like an appendix or a hangnail. Again, we know the truth, but pretend we don’t. We confuse simple with easy. It is simple to know that we ought to defend the baby’s life with all that we are, but it may be very difficult to do so. That is why motherhood should be held in high honor, because it requires self-sacrifice.

            But saying that life is infinitely valuable is not the whole story. We must frame the question with two considerations: who is the author of life, and what is the purpose of life?

            Christians, the group that by far makes up most pro-lifers in this nation, see that God is the author of life, and only he has authority to take it. They also see that the purpose of life is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever. The questions you ask fall into place in this framework. Conversely, without God, nothing in the universe makes sense. There is no transcendent moral or ethic, no knowledge of our origin (particles to people evolution is a total crock), no idea of our ultimate destiny, no meaning, and no hope.

            If God is the author of life, he has authority to take it. Christians, and Orthodox Jews to my knowledge, believe God himself instituted capital punishment for murder and delegated it to human government. This is known as the Covenant of Noah, described in Genesis chapter 9. The image of God in people is so sacred that a person who defaces and destroys that image must pay with his or her own life. No other penalty is suitable. Practically speaking, societies are healthier when murder is punished by the death penalty. Done promptly and consistently and ethically, it prevents recidivism and deters murder. It is not sufficient in itself to create a kind society, but it is necessary to avoid the breakdown of a kind society.

            Further, if the purpose of life is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, then life does not justify itself; merely the existence of a life does not justify its continuance in every case. If God decides, for example, that for the sake of his glory and his kingdom, to allow Christians to be killed by those who hate them, our answer should be the same as that of Abraham Lincoln, quoting the Bible: “The judgments of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether.” There are higher purposes than life itself. That is the root of courage in Western societies, even though those societies have forgotten it.

            Every Christian also knows that he or she is not the Messiah. No Christian, either working individually or in concert, can right every wrong or solve every problem. But God has given responsibility first to individuals, then families, then churches and communities, to provide and protect their own as well as to help those in need from outside. The apostle Paul underscores both of these, by saying that “if a man will not provide for his own household, he is worse than an unbeliever and has denied the [Christian] faith.” He also writes that the Apostle Peter’s one request of him was “to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.”

            So to circle back to your question: the term “pro-life” is useful, but not as a complete ethic in itself. A better description is the one the Bible offers: to fear God…in other words, to reserve an awesome respect for the Creator that results in praise, thanks and humble obedience. There is real evil in the world, and the death penalty is a necessary if regrettable part of dealing with it. Progressivism denies that objective moral evil exists in the human heart, and so looses many evils into the world.

            Indeed, there is poverty and oppression in the world. In response, the Christian knows that we must first provide for our own, but with God’s help find a way to do what we can to help others who are in need. These way-finders are more Christian than any other group or world view. Where do you think hospitals came from? The Red Cross? Orphanages? That’s right, Christians.

            Thus, to focus merely on “the children” as you have done is a mistake, because children belong in families, ideally with their own mother and father. To allow foreign children into the country with parents who will eagerly kill and enslave our own children is to ignore the reality of evil and fail in our responsibility. Again, the elevation of children to more than property, and the object of one’s supreme sacrifice, is rooted in the Judeo-Christian world view.

            With contraception, the fundamental premise is that my body is my own and God has no part of any of my use of it. No Christian can accept that premise. As a protestant Christian, I have held to the view that there is a place for contraception, but seeing the poisonous fruit of the sexual revolution, I am not so sure.

            Regarding “health care as a human right,” that is a slippery slope. If I see a newborn baby lying in an open field, I have a moral obligation to rescue it, unless doing so will endanger my life. I may choose to risk my own life to save her–another legacy of the Christian world view of the value of sacrificing one’s life for a greater good. If a woman has a baby inside her, she has a moral obligation to carry that baby to delivery and assist in providing for him, whether by her own work or through the help of others, or both. There is sacrifice there too. But using “health care is a human right” to offer free sex change operations by compelling surgeons and medical personnel to perform these surgeries, either for pay or for pretend pay (i.e., socialism), against their will–as the Obama administration has long clamored to do–is to ignore the surgeon and medical personnel’s right to liberty and to conscience. Focusing on responsibilities as well as rights is the way out, but Progressives are loath to acknowledge that.

            So if I have to choose between the title “pro-life” and “God-fearer,” I choose the latter, because it includes the former.

            But the fundamental truth is that even though you and I are not the Messiah–the Savior and Restorer of the World–Jesus Christ IS the Messiah. He and he alone provides the only way out of this huge mess humanity is in. He is the only place, the only person, where love and truth meet and live together in perfect harmony. He is, in the words of Isaiah the prophet (written 700 years before his birth), the “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” He died for our sins and rose from the dead–the most well documented fact of ancient history–to guarantee all of these claims.

            Are you suffering? So did he. Are you rejected? So was he. Are you poor? So was he. Are you punished for someone else’s wrong? So was he. As Corrie Ten Boom famously wrote, after enduring a WW2 German prison camp and the murder of her family, “There is no pit that God’s love is not deeper still.” The answer to the world’s problems–hate, war, rape, murder, racism, sexual brokenness and everything else–is not politics, but a person. The answer is not rights, but redemption, The answer is not me, but Jesus Christ, who loved me enough to die and suffer infinite punishment in hell, for me.

            That kind of love you cannot buy. But you don’t have to. It’s paid for and is yours for the asking. All you have to give…is you.

  • The attempt at moral equivalence between the left and right is absurd. It’s not even close. Of course human beings are inconsistent. This is news? No, the left is fundamentally, metaphysically different than the right. I don’t have time or space to make the argument here, but listen or read Dennis Prager sometime. He gets the secularist, totalitarian, Nihilistic nature of leftism as well as anybody.

    • anne55

      Dennis Prager and Prager U? First, he doesn’t have a “real” university. It is all online, 5 minute radio pieces that push his point of view. He comes from a religious POV. That is okay, as long as he lists it as his opinion, like an op-ed. And as long as he doesn’t claim to be a university with all that implies. That is simply false.

      • Who said he had a “real” university? It’s more than obvious he has never made or even implied such a thing. And if you bothered to read my comment I never mentioned it either!

        And why is a “religious” POV any different than any other POV? Secular left-wing atheists are just as “religious” as anyone else. Everyone lives by faith because absolute knowledge doesn’t exist. A POV is only worth the logic and reason there might be to back it up. Leftism has no logic or reason, only bullying and shaming.

        • anne55

          He lists it as Prager U, and if you do a google search it comes up as Prager University. That is disingenuous. My point is, I have heard of it from other sources. And, I don’t consider it a valid source if a) it misrepresents itself and b) it does not state that it is a slanted, opinion-based piece. Someone stumbling across it by accident might consider it information from a university (thereby giving it more credence because of that) and they might believe all the statistics without checking and double checking them. Dennis Prager is misrepresenting himself via this insinuation.

          • Wayne Cook

            No it isn’t…you’re cherry picking, nit picking, etc.

          • anne55

            I am not. You have to take a look at sources and how they represent themselves. That is called ‘media literacy’. My husband use to teach media literacy. And, it does come up as Prager University if you google his name. I’d cut and paste it here if I could, but this site doesn’t give me the option.

          • Wayne, it’s worse than nit picking. It’s total obliviousness. My comment had nothing to do with Prager University. I could have given any number of examples, but Prager it one of the more passionate and consistent in his assessment of the left’s evil influence. And you’d have to be majorly slow to think Prager University is a “real” university. I give anne55, 55 Duhs!

          • anne55

            Then why call it that at all? What is the point? If he wants to be seen as a legitimate source, he shouldn’t say he is something he is not.

          • The point? To confuse people like you! Obviously very easy to confuse!

          • anne55

            It doesn’t confuse me. It makes me not trust his site.

          • Really? Who cares.

  • russresnik

    Michael, thank you for this article. Sometimes we have to speak prophetically into the whole political mix. The kingdom is greater than right and left.

    • anne55

      Maybe the very terms “left” and “right” are bad ones and should be put to bed. There is just ‘we, the people’ — we are not football teams competing against each other. There should not be winners and losers, but compromise. Otherwise, one side will always remain unhappy. I would like to see decisions based on facts, scientific facts and not solely on emotions as I think they often are now.

      • Dean Bruckner

        Compromise with evil is evil.

        • anne55

          Then we will never get anywhere, because people on both sides feel the same way about their points of view. We have to compromise for the sake of our country, our democracy. This does not bode well.

          • Dean Bruckner

            One side thinks that cutting a live baby apart into pieces inside the womb, without anesthesia, by the millions, and dumping the bodies in the garbage is the highest expression of womanhood.

            The other side thinks that is horrid demonic evil that will lead to the destruction of the United States, the American people and the individuals involved.

            One side thinks Roe v Wade is a wonderful and fair Supreme Court case; the other side thinks it is a lying, corrupt and unconstitutional assertion of raw judicial power.

            How do you propose a compromise between these?

          • anne55

            I personally don’t like the idea of abortions unless they are done very early on. I don’t believe a cluster of cells feels anything or is aware of anything. Just as a seed is not a flower, but the blueprint for a flower, very early embryonic development is the blue print for a human. I don’t like the idea of abortion once a fetus has developed past this point. However, I think it is also difficult to say when a fetus experiences pain (the best science says not until around week 20 because you have to have a developed enough nervous system). However, that is not definitively proven, as far as I know. But, I also don’t like the idea of making that decision for other women. And, I think it should be women making the decision because they are the ones bearing the fetus. Not men.

          • Dean Bruckner

            Well, Anne, at some point each person has to determine whether God exists, and if so, who that God is. A person who views abortion like you do has decided that there is no God, or equivalently, that he or she (the person who has the view on abortion) is god. This cannot end well.

            Ending an innocent human life for the sake of convenience is distilled, pure evil. If that human life is, furthermore, made in the image of an all-powerful, holy Creator God, then killing it is also an eternal offense against that Being, an offense that will bring eternal wrath and judgment on the evildoer. If that Creator God is jealous and rightly defends his prerogative to be the only one to act as God, and the usurper uses that usurpation to do evil and to strike out against that Creator God, then the person who has committed that sin has created a perfect storm of deliberate offense. There will be, literally, hell to pay.

            I don’t know if you read in high school the sermon of Jonathan Edwards, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” Now would be a good time to re-read it, while there is still time to repent. All of us, apart from God’s mercy, are deserving of nothing but wrath and punishment from God. Repent while there is still time!

  • anne55

    I appreciate a conservative writer and thinker pointing out these inconsistencies. You are spot on. While I don’t ever condone violence (such as Berkeley but also encouraged by Trump himself at his own rallies), I must say I see even more double standards all over the place. Yes, Milo Y. should have been allowed to talk AND people allowed to peacefully protest. But, I can understand the frustration of people when the right yells “foul” someone espousing racist and misogynistic views is silenced, only to themselves publicly silence someone like Elizabeth Warren for reading Coretta Scott King’s letter in public. I recently read an article which rang true to me. It said that the unprecedented number of executive actions taken in the past 3 administrations (this one included) bespeaks of a failure of Congress to allow debate and compromise on a variety of topics. I agree. That is something we should all be worried about. This particular Administration acts as though it has a big mandate. In fact, it does not. While Trump claims to have won “by a landslide”, he did not. His current approval ratings are quite low for a new Administration. Yet, he barrels ahead as though he does have a huge mandate and is a popular president. That was untrue of Obama in the sense that he DID have high approval ratings at the same point in his Administration and he was elected by a much bigger margin. Then, there is the whole (continuing to unfold) Russian controversy that does taint this election. So, while I do appreciate all the points you’ve stated and think many of them to be fair ones, I also think there are substantial and important differences between these two Administrations that go beyond your points.

    • Dean Bruckner

      Your post reads like a word cloud of fake news from the New York Times, Washington Post, Buzzfeed and the Huffington Post.

      • anne55

        And what do you consider reliable news sources?

        • Dean Bruckner

          The Stream, Townhall, OneNewsNow, PJMedia, Washington Times, Washington Examiner, Washington Free Beacon, WattsUpWithThat, UncommonDescent, World Magazine, ThePublicDiscourse, FirstThings, LiveAction, PatriotPost, MichelleMalkin, Twitchy, and recently Breitbart (I dropped it when it went all hater on Ted Cruz, but I’m checking it again now).

          Drudge has many links outside these, so I see some of the fake news outlets too. Some of the sites above on my list have more commentary than news, but that’s useful for in depth reading. Heavy(dot)com seems fair and timely when I need the latest news about the most recent jihad in America. TheReligionofPeace is excellent with jihadi murder stats around the world.

          I don’t recommend RedState or NationalReview; both have jumped the shark.

          I’m glad you asked.

          • anne55

            Okay. Then what is it about centrist and left-leaning articles you don’t trust? Because I probably have some of the same reactions to at least some of the magazines you mentioned.

          • Dean Bruckner

            They don’t tell the truth whenever it counts. If they don’t tell the truth on homosexuality and abortion, how can I trust them to tell the truth about anything else. They don’t love the truth; they lie.

          • anne55

            I believe they just tell another POV. How can you deny the way you are born, the way God made you? That would cause incredible internal dissonance. The suicide rates are unbelievably high among LGBTQ youth. You don’t ‘choose’ a difficult (to date anyway) lifestyle unless you just can’t be any other way. It IS who you are. What are religious conservatives afraid of if they are accepting of homosexuality? How does it threaten their way of life and who they are? Just not clear about that.

          • Dean Bruckner

            Well, it ought to be clear. How does it threaten “their” way of life?

            How about this: death. One of my extended family members came out as homosexual (today’s term is gay) back in the late 1970s. The family loved him, but he was estranged from them and lived in San Francisco, above a gay bathhouse. He contracted HIV and AIDS, before antiretroviral drugs were available. This led to his repentance and re-connecting with family in the last year of his life, but it killed him. By the early 1990s, he was dead and had a quilt panel in the AIDS project.

            Even today, San Francisco is off the charts for the transmission of all kinds of sexually transmitted diseases. It is not healthy, either for the participants or for the community. There is, overlaid on it, a strident and uncompromising denial of reality, such as the press of the LGBT activists to be allowed to donate blood despite the huge documented list of medical risks to others. The risks don’t matter; the ideology trumps everything, even reality and life. This lifestyle must be seen to be good, and true, and beautiful, at any cost. That threatens everyone.

            More fundamentally, I disagree with the “identity as gay or lesbian” way of thinking. Yes, all of us have crosses to bear, some heavier than others. But following “Saint” Oscar Wilde (“The only way to deal with temptation is to give in to it”) produces only death in the end, as he himself demonstrated (read about the end of his life!). God can give grace to allow people to deal with all sorts of brokenness and difficulties, but inverting God’s word and his design is destructive and will not end well.

            Respectfully, I assert that you need to reverse your thinking. Instead of assuming you are right and God is wrong and that he must align to your expectations, you need to do the aligning. You can’t do this on your own, but he will help you.

          • anne55

            I don’t believe God (or nature or whatever one believes in) is ‘wrong’. I believe there are all sorts of variations in human development. I am sorry about your family member who died of AIDS. It is a horrible disease, but at least not the death sentence it use to be. But, this is only one example of things that can happen to people. Early on, AIDS also happened from blood transfusions, from shared needles, from accidental contact with blood waste. It is plain and simple and illness. You could also site other venereal diseases (often via heterosexual contact) or hepatitis. And, when I asked the question about how does it threaten their way of life, I was not referring to the gay or lesbian person. I was thinking of the evangelical person. How does someone else’s sexuality threaten the evangelical? Why can we just ‘live and let live’.

  • Wayne Cook

    Never mind that Congress is investigating 43 federal statutes broken by Obama’s Exec Orders.

    • anne55

      Please site your source on this.

      • Wayne Cook

        No. You use your fingers and google.

        • anne55

          I tried. I can’t find it.

        • Wayne Cook

          At your age, can’t should have disappeared from your dictionary years ago.

          • anne55

            This is part of the problem. I am trying to have a dialog with people other than those that already agree with me. But, it is hard if you are treated rudely or just dismissed. I think if one is going to make a statement such as your’s above, one ought to be able to back it up. I honestly did a search and could not find it. I am willing to read other points of view and asking for more information is a good thing. So, it makes me think that either you simply don’t have the information to back it up or…are just being inconsiderate and attempting to belittle me rather than respond to a request.

    • anne55

      This is part of the problem. I want to have a dialog with people other than already agree with me. But, it is hard if you are treated rudely. I think if one is going to make a statement such as your’s above, one ought to be able to back it up. I honestly did a search and could not find it. I am willing to read other points of view and asking for more information is not a bad thing. So, it makes me think that either you don’t have the information to back it up or…are just being inconsiderate and attempting to belittle me because I asked for more. Neither one impresses me, frankly.

  • Jim Walker

    I’m rather shocked to read this from Dr Brown. I would say he has gone overboard to tell us.

    Matthew 7:5
    You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
    I agree to a certain extent of his article but the Leftwing to me is almost pure satanic. It is very natural for rightwing to feel “vindicated” to heap some slurs back, me included, but to compare the generally peaceful rightwing with the left is very insulting.

    • anne55

      I appreciate his trying to see both sides.

      • anne55

        In addition, the right wing has it’s extremist (and sometimes violent ones). What about Ammon and Ryan Bundy, Clive Bundy’s sons? What about the KKK? White Supremacists? What about Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing? What about attacks on abortion clinics and abortion doctors? Violence is violence, no matter who perpetrates it or why. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the Children of God.”

        • Dean Bruckner

          KKK was by Democrats, for Democrats.

          • anne55

            I’m just trying to comment that the KKK is considered a far-right group.

          • Dean Bruckner

            No it isn’t. It’s a Progressive group. The Progressives are gearing up to treat Christians now like the KKK treated black people then.

          • anne55

            I honestly don’t understand this apparent ‘picked on’ feeling that some Christians seem to have. I simply don’t see it as reality. It MAY BE that some Christians feel besieged because of all the changes in society. But, that is more a feeling of internal dissonance than others purposely mistreating you.

          • Jäger

            When Catholic nuns (I’m agnostic, BTW) are forced to pay for aborticants, when deeply religious Christians who work and live a religious lifestyle are punished for refusing to help with and take part in homosexual weddings…

            … if that isn’t being “picked on”, how far does it have to go? Aside from the errors regarding the Kluxers I mean.

            We’re talking a little more than the day to day villification, demagoguery, and ridicule here. And, BTW, do you think the same treatment would be accepted towards Muslims? Buddhists?

          • anne55

            But, you can view it from the other point of view also. LGBTQ have been ‘picked on’ for their sexual orientations for years. They themselves have felt like second class citizens until very recently. I guess I believe in the compassion for all POV. I believe people should be allowed to make their own choices without fear of shunning or reprisals.

          • Dean Bruckner

            People thrive in loving, authoritative communities. Not authoritarian, but one where there is a basic right way to live that is accepted and held in place by the leaders, elders, fathers and mothers in that community. Radical autonomy and radical egalitarianism–where there is no right and wrong and no one to say there is right and wrong for the community–is what you are articulating. We know how that ends…not well. It is a recipe for the dissolution of society, a return to savagery.

            The End of the Spear is a movie that describes a tribe in the Amazon jungle who lived by that very same ethic, until love and self-sacrifice showed them an infinitely better way to live.

          • anne55

            Yes, I generally agree with your statement. But, I don’t think that a loving, authoritative community has to be just one thing, i.e., it doesn’t have to be a religious community — although that is one possibility. I believe this can exist in families, in schools, in community and recreational organizations,, libraries and cultural societies. I think these groups can also teach moral values.

          • Jäger

            So Anne… since the alphabet soup sexuality crowd were picked on for years, then we should abuse devoutly religious people to make them feel better about it? To make ourselves feel better about it?

            What, exactly, does violating the First Amendment rights of devoutly religious people accomplish, other than perpetuating abuse?

            Whaddya say we get one of the handful of white supremacist churches to demand two black lesbians bake a wedding cake for one of their weddings – they do identify as Christian.

            Did you ever happen to notice these hit jobs on Christians never translate into hit jobs on Muslim halal bakeries, caterers, etc? Most Islam teaching that I have seen overseas and here is pretty explicit where homosexuals are.

          • anne55

            I would feel the same way no matter who they went to for a birthday cake. And there are real sexual orientation differences that can occur during embryonic development. These differences can be as real as hair and eye color. Oh, yeah…I guess we have discriminated against skin color for many, many years so maybe I can’t expect people to accept that when they are born white and male that they start out from a vantage point of unearned privilege.

          • Jäger

            Ah yes… “white male privilege”.

            That’s when somebody who is
            black will get accepted with a low GPA at a prestigious medical school when a
            “privileged white male” wouldn’t even get looked at with a much higher
            GPA. When you’re a white male actor who would like to audition for the
            play “Hamilton” and you’re told whites need not apply.

            But, that’s regressive progressivism for you: all histronics, all emotion, and a lack of rational arguments.

            Let’s
            have a quick look at how that “white male privilege” abuses blacks and
            Latinos applying for medical school in the US, shall we? At how
            regressive progressive racial profiling of whites discriminates against
            their admission to medical school.

            And
            regressive progressives think their discrimination based simply on skin
            color somehow or other wins them the moral high ground. Quite
            astonishing, actually.

          • Dean Bruckner

            Jager is right. Specific examples are listed below; you’ll have to google them since the Stream does not accept web links.

            There are three reasons that you don’t understand, as follows:

            1. This is a spiritual battle between God and his enemy, Satan, and you are blind to it. I don’t say that to denigrate you; I say it simply as the truth, as a fact. All of us were blind before God forgave our sins and opened our eyes to the reality of righteousness. The fact is, God’s people are always hated by those who aren’t God’s people; the haters express it differently, based on the amount of power they have at the moment, but Jesus told his followers this: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for following what is right, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” The Bible says those who walk in the darkness–moral darkness–hate the light, because their deeds are evil. There is a visceral hatred, spurred on by their violated consciences, to silence everything that reminds them of God.

            2. Your reading has deceived you. Again, I don’t say this to denigrate you, but just to answer the question truthfully. The Apostle Paul wrote in Romans chapter 1 that the first act of people who turn away from God is that they suppress the truth in order to continue in their sin without interference. If the mainstream media (MSM) does ANYTHING consistently, it is suppressing the truth. They publish lies actively and decide not to report certain truths passively. Some is deliberate and some is reflexive. If you don’t understand why Christians feel persecuted by tyrannical acts of Progressives, no wonder! You never hear it from then because they don’t report it. They are not content to do this just with what is going on today; they feel compelled to alter both history and predictions of the future to suppress the truth as well. Read about NYT reporter Walter Durant covering up the millions of famine deaths caused by Soviet Communists in the 1930s (for which he and the NYT received a Pulitzer which they have yet to return or even acknowledge). Read about NYT commentator Paul Krugman who, in his election night rants, said that the Stock Market will never recover (it promptly broke all records for growth). This is where the “being on the right side of history” propaganda comes from.

            3. You have not asked God to reveal the truth to you. You can do this, and he will show you. But be careful; the condition for receiving more truth is to obey the truth you already know.

          • anne55

            Thank you, Dean, for taking the time to respond to me and write such a detailed letter of your thinking and positions. While there is much I don’t follow or agree with, I respect you for that. I can see where, if one takes the Bible literally, you would feel the way you do. I don’t take it literally (just my position). But, neither do I want to persecute those that do. Here is my thinking in a small nutshell. There are good people on both sides of issues who genuinely believe their points of view. They are moral people who just have a different perspective and we somehow have to hear the concerns of all and try to compromise. The problem comes when no one wants to give an inch and when we see the world in black and white, good and evil. If people on either side are labeling good people of conscience on the other side as “evil”, it makes hearing their concerns almost impossible. So, how can we protect the rights of all? Of, say, people with strong religious beliefs about gay marriage with those that ARE gay and deserve to have their civil rights heard and addressed? This isn’t an easy conversation, for sure, but I think it is a totally necessary one. If we simply say “There is no compromise”, then we really are a house divided, maybe forever. I hate to think that. I totally believe that there are good people with similar beliefs to your’s who are compassionate and genuine in their perspective. I think we need to look for our common, underlying values and start from there. This is not a short talk. It is an ongoing one. But, we all tend to see the world, and act on it, from our own perspectives. Understandably, we tend to talk only to those people who verify our own world views. We stretch ourselves when we reach out and try to listen. I just came across this short test on morality (put out by several universities). It tries to look at underlying values and it predicts which side of the political spectrum one will fall on as a result of those values. The underlying values are all valid ones and can give everyone some perspective on “how the other side feels” and why they act the way they do. Maybe try it? It is interesting. I just tried to post the link, but don’t think this site allows it. If you try Your Morals followed by a dot org it should work.

          • Dean Bruckner

            Anne, thanks for your reply. I too
            agree that talking through our differences can be helpful and productive in the short term at least, and is better than the alternatives.

            We need to bring back the original meaning of the word tolerance. Not forced approval, as people mean today, but an agreement to put up with a noxious moral or spiritual view with kindness and compassion. But don’t forget that the source of THAT kind of tolerance is the Judie-Christian world view.

            I wish you the best! Dean

          • getstryker

            I would also thank you for your accurate, insightful and compelling comment.
            Well done.

          • AlizarinRipley

            Not entirely accurate. Conservatives are far bigger hypocrites. Hes just being nice because hes identified as a conservative most of his life and hes just now coming to terms with it.

          • getstryker

            Opinions vary . . . it’s probably why we have ‘conservatives and liberals’ – each is entitled to an opinion!

        • Jim Walker

          How can the Republican (right wing) party that abolish slavery be a party of White Supremacists ?
          KKK were Democrats.
          Attacks on abortion are so rare from some overzealous nutcases.

    • AlizarinRipley

      Viewing the left wing as satanic when the left wing has consistently showed its willingness to help people makes you an idiot. Of course its ok for you to call liberals satanic but its not ok for me to call you an idiot because the cons reading this will still see me as the hypocrite.

  • He oversimplified positions that we have and took that oversimplified position to misrepresent it as hypocrisy. We have principles and base our arguments on that. I don’t know of anyone going around declaring arbitrary generalities as their position.

    Dr. Brown, I always love your articles, but this was poorly done. You even point out the flaws in your questions of hypocrisy. Some were genuine instances of hypocrisy, but even some of those were posed as a hypothetical what-if question.

    How did I score? None of these described me at all. So, I did fairly well.

    • AlizarinRipley

      If conservatives base their arguments on principles then why do they have to lie so much?

  • False equivalence does not substantiate hypocrisy.

    The Left talks about values their own actions violate: intolerance in the name of “tolerance,” or public violence in the name of “love.” These are unequivocal logical hypocrisies.

    But you’re drawing a false equivalence between very different actions of two vastly different presidents. If conservatives apply ethical principles in the same way to two entirely different contexts – this is moral consistency. You pretend that, since the circumstances warrant a different response to the use of executive orders (lawful vs. unlawful), or media editorializing (news hosts vs. radio editorials), Congress blocking presidential appointments (case-by-case), election results (which both sides reserved the right to question based on evidence of fraud).

    Please do not confuse ethical principles applied consistently relative to circumstances with variable ethics applied hypocritically regardless of the merits. Context is key.

  • 1257dale .

    Mr. Brown:

    Good article overall, and you make some very valid points, although a bit on the heavy handed side. Just a couple quick areas that I think you may have missed the boat on:

    -It is not about good or bad Executive Orders, but constitutional or unconstitutional. Some of Obama’s were unconstitutional, or very close to it. So far as I am aware, thus far, only one of Trump’s have crossed that line, and that is questionable. A few wording changes, and that will probably change as well.
    -I cannot ever remember the sheer volume of so called ‘fake news; stories that are put out by the press and often repeated by the politicians. There was rw animosity toward Obama, but there is sheer, dripping hatred of Trump.

    -Which brings me to the electoral college. First, you are speculating as to what the rw reaction would have been, (although I suspect you may be correct, that too is speculation), but you missed the reason that the left is seen as hypocritical on this. It is not a matter of merely accepting the results. The point is that they kept saying how they would accept the results. The lw clearly crossed the hypocrite line on that one.

    -When talking about the lw, especially the celebrities, you ignore that they are very vocal, even to the point of calling for military coup, martial law, and a host of other rather distasteful (to put it very lightly). With the possible exception of a few extremists here and there, I do not remember many rw rallys that turned so violent with the sole purpose of ‘resisting’ Obama, and frankly, I have never been threatened for the mere sin of liking something Obama may have said or done. -And how many celebrities were threatened for the mere crime of performing at Obama’s Inaugurations? Or how many people were so physically or verbally abused in such a public manner? (Think the dude on the plane, or the kid that was tied up and tortured)

    I think we have problems. Overlooking the reality of our national divide is not going to get them solved.

  • AlizarinRipley

    Sorry but Conservatives are far bigger hypocrites lets not sugar coat it. Conservatives are twice as likely as Liberals to spread fake news and they are 3 times more likely to tell a lie. If Liberals are intolerant of anything its the constant lies that come from Rigt wingers. The more a right winger lies to my face the more I want to knock them out. Just stop.

  • AlizarinRipley

    Lets be honest here. Anyone who claims tl be a Christian but votes Republican is the biggest hypocrite of them all. A real Christian would try to help the poor, would try to help refugees, would try to clean the environment. You get none of that with the Cons. When are you people going to wake up?

Inspiration
Looking for Jesus in the Fourth Watch of the Night
Deacon Keith Fournier
More from The Stream
Connect with Us