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

Paul Hair Contributor
Font Size:

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.

There’s also the left’s position on rape. Sometimes rape is bad . . . but only when it is “rape rape” and not rape involving a leftist hero such as Roman Polanski, or a lesbian protagonist from The Vagina Monologues.

The left takes both positions on nationalized life control health care death panels too. The left mercilessly mocks Sarah Palin and others on the right when they note that nationalized health care will create death panels. Yet, the left slips now and then, and they admit to death panels even as they continue denying them.

So I suppose I shouldn’t really be surprised that the left is taking both positions on incest: leftists are for it except for when they are against it. And I really should retract my initial allegation that embracing incest humiliates the left. In fact, maybe the left is entirely right for doing this. After all, lies about conservatives being incestuous conjures up images of hillbillies in overalls, with their cursed rednecks and beer-soaked beards (men and women), having sweaty sex in the woods in some ramshackle wood cabin, slobbering on one another as they yell racist obscenities with their twang-filled accents. Yet truths about leftists being incestuous conjures up images of intellectuals in colleges — no, universities — in tweed jackets and designer clothing, with their cosmetically enhanced bodies and arched eyebrows, making passionate love in the Hamptons as they discuss Marxist theories, and what new word they should create in order to make incest culturally acceptable — “famosexuals,” perhaps — those who love their family. After all, who can be against loving one’s family?

Yes, come to think of it, the left is right about their two-faced position on incest. There is nothing wrong with being against something and for it at the same time . . . especially when those on the right will accept such a position as legitimate . . . and those who hold it as rational.

Paul Hair serves in the U.S. Army Reserves as a non-commissioned officer; he is veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He has worked as a civilian in both the government and private sectors. His views are his own and he in no way represents the Army Reserves or any other part of the U.S. government.