Yet once again, liberals of America have been given but another opportunity to stand proud. With a remarkable economy of words one of their leaders, Barbra Streisand, expressed at a recent concert what I have long suspected is a common thought shared by many her followers toward the “unenlightened” masses … you know, those whom people living at the center of the universe (i.e. California) believe must reside “somewhere else” (i.e. the “red states”). To her chagrin, apparently a few of those “unenlightened” people found their way into her audience (i.e. they bought tickets) and then had the unmitigated gall to express their displeasure when she openly mocked their President. Her response? She rejoined them with a gentility only achievable by liberals who have obtained to the highest order by lovingly suggesting to them that they should: “Shut the F*** up.”
How sweet is that? What a tender-hearted expression of care and concern. I mean, really, you have to wonder, is it even possible for one to aspire to being more tolerant of the diversity among us than that? Obviously her concern is for the well-being of the unenlightened. And, how lucky can we be? She wants us to evolve … to become more like her and those she considers to be her friends, and how is that possible if those in need of being educated aren’t willing to just be shut up and listen? So, in her own little way, hasn’t her recent demonstrative blurt shown us yet again how deeply she must believe that “people, people who love people, are the luckiest people in the world?”
Of course, I can understand how some might have problems with Barbra’s approach. After all, for one thing, it is necessarily based on the presumption that the only “correct” view of the world is Barbra’s. But today we are told this is what it is to be enlightened, whereas in the days of yore, it might have been mischaracterized as the musings of an egotist – you know, the type of person who might be found complaining;
“I’m not being fair with myself. My humility has caused me to not love myself as much as I should.”
In fact, were I not so very tolerant of those among us who are intolerant due to their enlightenment, I might even go so far as to say that in the past it might have reminded me of Milton Berle’s old joke: what does a woman have that gets bigger when you stroke it? He used to say that it was her ego, but today, by the example set by Barbra, it just might be more politically correct to say it is her intolerance of those who might disagree with her politics of tolerance.
On the other hand, there probably are some of you out there who might conclude (again, paraphrasing Berle) that for Barbra it’s probably a good thing she doesn’t have to pay taxes on what she thinks she’s really worth. But to those who think this way, would it not be appropriate to respond by pointing out that she has the right to say what she said to “hecklers” at her performance? Yes, I suppose that may be true if it was her singing they were heckling. But, interestingly, it wasn’t. They were heckling her intentional infusion of her politics into a forum that those who bought tickets reasonably thought was intended only to showcase her singing talents. So, couldn’t it be argued that, by her infusion of politics into what many could reasonably expect to be an apolitical environment, it was she who invited the very response from her audience that set her off? Well Barbra, welcome to the “Public Square.” You know what that is, don’t you? That’s the place in America where we enable anyone and everyone to express their divergent views on all subjects politic, even, and perhaps especially, when those views stand in diametric opposition to those expressed by the few among us who consider themselves to be enlightened, and therefore, “elite.”
Seriously, however, in my opinion, it is the view held by those who would silence their opposition by yelling things like “Shut the F*** up” that is truly frightening For one thing, you might say at the very least that it indicates such people are not coming to the arena of civic discourse with an open mind. Rather, it would seem they are closer to taking the narcissistic position that politics should operate on the principle: “My way or off with your heads.” And isn’t such a philosophy really more akin to something befitting of a dictatorship than a democracy? Doesn’t it seem to have a Stalinesque ring to it that is similar to the intolerance of a Taliban-like regime, which I am fairly certain we would all claim to despise? And why is that? Because, let’s face it, all such political environments, when boiled down to their most basic elements, are built on a foundation of someone’s supreme egotism, are they not?
Don’t get me wrong though, Barbra. I’m not necessarily saying that like it’s a bad thing. There’s a part of me that loves egotists. For one thing, they are a unique group of people who only under the mildest of duress will usually confess quickly just how wonderful they really are, and so, are frequently easy to spot. After all, if there is one thing of which we can be fairly certain, it is that the most difficult secret for an egotist to keep is her opinion of herself. And, since such people can be so easily identified, that makes our job easier. For now we certainly have been given sufficient information to know how the rest of us “unenlightened” oafs should behave while in the presence of people like Barbra so as to enable them to remain calm. We now know that we only have to remember to sit down and shut the f*** up, but then, in silence, also remember to vote accordingly. That way, in the end everybody’s happy, no? God bless America. Ain’t it great? We truly are a group of people, people who love people …
© 2006 Clifford C. Nichols, Esq.
Cliff Nichols is an attorney practicing criminal defense in Santa Monica, California. He may be contacted regarding this editorial at either (310) 917-1083, cliff@cliffnicholslaw.com or www.cliffnicholslaw.com and you may join his blog at www.thedailystand.com.