Opinion

Incest: Something ‘progressive’ . . . when ‘conservative, racist hicks’ aren’t imagined doing it

The left and right are reacting entirely differently to the news that authorities have arrested a Columbia University professor on charges of incest with his adult daughter. I have nothing to say about the professor at this point since he is presumed innocent. However, I am interested in the reaction to the charges. The left supports the professor’s alleged actions — and the “freedom” to engage in incest, in general — while the right expresses outrage and wonders if the “moral relevance” argument that legitimized homosexuality will also legitimize incest. The left’s reaction is not unexpected but interesting (more about that in a bit) while the right’s reaction is just plain confusing. After all, why is the right even concerned with this when it has already capitulated to the left on homosexuality? In other words, it seems rather foolish that the right would even attempt to oppose this latest assault on morality since the right will surrender to the legitimizing of incest just as it has surrendered to the legitimizing of homosexuality (see the repeal of the military ban on homosexuality). Soon both homosexuality and incest will be “Just perfectly fine!” with those on the right as they are now with those on the left (as long as it is between “consenting adults,” of course). (Side Note: Homosexuals, fearing that the comparisons of incest to homosexuality might actually cause the public to rethink homosexuality at this point, are on the defensive and are insisting that incest is nothing like homosexuality.) But I digress. Back to the left’s reaction being interesting.

The interesting part about the left defending incest is that it humiliates both the left and right. It humiliates the left by the fact that one of the left’s favorite slurs against the right was to call the right, “A bunch of inbred, racist hicks” (or some variation thereof). And so the left is humiliated by the fact that one of its most vicious slurs now is rendered impotent. At the same time, the left’s defense of incest humiliates the right by the fact that the right continues to treat the left as a respectable opponent (when it is so obviously and utterly insane), and by the fact that the right will allow (over time) for the left to transform incest from a vicious slur against the right into a “genetic sexual orientation” — one worthy of “hate crime” protection and massive amounts of “anti-bullying” indoctrination and legislation. Hmmm. Maybe the left defending incest doesn’t humiliate the left. After all, having it both ways seems to work well for the left and its allies. The past illustrates this well.

For instance, when Barack Obama and John McCain competed for the presidency in 2008 we learned that it was unacceptable — over the line, if you will — to use Mr. Obama’s middle name. Even now, one cannot say, “Barack Hussein Obama,” without accusations that he is attempting to use “Hussein” as a “smear” or a means to denigrate the president. Nevertheless, when the president took the oath of office, he decided that he needed to use his middle name. He also used his middle name “to seek common ground” in his dealings with the Islamic world.

And there’s the “No Labels” organization which, aside from the obvious irony of labeling the group with a name at all, shows that the left both supports the elimination of labels and supports the use of them. Leftists support the elimination of labels when they fall out favor, but they support the use of labels when they are in favor or when it benefits them. This is sort of like how leftists are against bipartisanship when they control two branches of government, but for bipartisanship now that they (sort of) lost one-half of one branch of government.