by
Jim Argo
Richard Nixon coined the term “silent majority” during the Vietnam War, when
he needed something to counteract the anti-war demonstrators who were
becoming a regular feature on the evening news. So Nixon went on television
and proclaimed that a “great silent majority” of the American people
supported his policies no matter what the noisy demonstrators were saying.
I don’t know if Nixon had the numbers to back up his claim, but there does
seem to be some substance to his theory. It often seems like a very small
group of people is making most of the noise about a particular issue. Thus,
a small segment of the populace is sometimes able to bring about major
changes in the lives of the majority.
Most of the time we don’t complain. A “vocal minority” stirs things up and
makes things happen. The “silent majority” sits back and observes the
process on the nightly news. Both parties get what they want – for the price
they are willing to pay. Democracy in action. No problem.
Unless, of course, the silent majority doesn’t like the way the vocal
minority is running things. Then it simply means that the silent folks have
to get off the couch and make their voices heard. Once they do, everything
is back in balance.
But what happens if a vocal minority is able to override the majority’s
wishes? I suspect this happens more than you might imagine. The vocal
minority isn’t bashful, but it’s more difficult to know what the silent
masses are thinking.
In my opinion – based on admittedly unscientific observations – there is
often a big disconnect between the way that “average people” view the world
and the way that “noisy people” see things. And the more controversial the
issue, the bigger the discrepancy. When it comes to contentious issues such
as abortion, gun control, and homosexuality, the divergence can be huge.
For instance, the noisy folks on the liberal end of the spectrum claim
enlightened people support abortion on demand, stricter gun laws, and the
recognition of homosexual “unions” as marriages. Clamorous conservatives, on
the other hand, profess that reasonable people believe abortion is a
euphemism for baby killing, homosexuality is an abomination, and the only
gun control a person needs is a steady hand.
In casual conversations with a quieter segment of society I hear a different
story.
The people that I talk to don’t believe the government has the right to tell
a woman what to do with her body. But neither do they think that abortions
should be so convenient they take the place of abstinence or birth control.
They don’t believe that discrimination based on sexual orientation is
acceptable. But they don’t think “loving relationships” between homosexual
partners measure up to their standards for marriage.
These people believe that reasonable gun laws are a good thing. But they
don’t believe that guns are the cause of violence in our society. They abhor
discrimination and condemn slavery. But they don’t believe that past sins
are justification for any group of people – black, brown, or WASP – to
receive special treatment today. And they don’t believe trillions of dollars
in “reparations”, 100 years after slavery was abolished, is going to fix
anything.
I also hear something else – something that troubles me. I hear people
saying they are reluctant to speak out against the liberal view on so-called
“sensitive issues.” They have no qualms about speaking out against Falwell,
Liddy or Limbaugh. But they slink away and speak in hushed whispers when
faced with the prospect of going up against Rosie or Oprah.
When you examine the situation, their reluctance is understandable. The
liberal movement is extremely powerful. Its followers have staked out the
moral high ground by claiming to be defenders of diversity and tolerance.
And they have made it clear that the debate is over. There is nothing left
to discuss. Get over it. Anyone who opposes them is branded a racist, a
bigot, or a homophobe.
Taken in small doses, the liberal stance is admirable. Diversity and
tolerance are noble goals. But extremism in pursuit of a noble goal is still
extremism. The fanatical pursuit of tolerance leads to intolerance.
Excessive virtue is a vice.
The zealous pursuit of tolerance has brought the liberals full circle. They
now rigidly demand that everyone be “tolerant” like them. And anyone who
refuses is severely ostracized. The purported defenders of diversity and
tolerance have been blinded by their passion and have lost the ability to
see their own flaws. With tragic and poetic irony, the enemies of bigotry
have themselves become bigots.
_______________________________
*This editorial opinion appeared in the August 31 edition of _The Denver
Post_, and is reprinted with permission. While it was written as secular
commentary on the state of the world, its insights may also be applicable to
the state of our church. It’s author, Jim Argo, wore out the left side of
his brain programming computers and is now burning up what’s left of the
right side writing commentaries on the state of the world.