I guess we all had that friend when we were kids who would encourage us to do things against our conscience or our better judgement. Never would they engage in an intellectual discussion over the merits of shoplifting or sneaking out to a party. Never would they provide empirical data on how advantageous it was to commit acts of vandalism or join in underage drinking. Never would they participate in a reasoned debate as to the advantages of adolescent sexual activity or high speed driving on a dark country road. No, they used the one time proven tactic that has always worked to encourage the reluctant adolescent to do things against their will: “What? Are you scared?” Those simple words were the equivalent of the challenge of a duel. No longer was the advisability of the action the question; now it was your honor as a teenager that was on the line. It was the evolution of the young child’s dare, and to prove that you feared nothing, even things that would rightly have been feared, you were obliged to participate in activities which left to your own you likely would have avoided. It’s called peer pressure, and it doesn’t vanish as we enter the world of adults; it only dons a slightly more sophisticated mask.
Few consider fearfulness an admirable human quality, and the accusation of cowardice is as humiliating to adults as it is to children. And so the child who cajoled his reluctant friends by accusing them of being scared has grown into the adult who silences those who disagree with him by accusing them of having “phobias”. Those who warned us of the dangers of Islamic extremism were instantly accused of being “islamophobic”, which I guess would be defined as having an irrational fear of people who might cut off your head. If you are concerned about the porosity of our borders, then you must be xenophobic, which at least is an actual disorder. If you are an advocate for retaining the definition of marriage that mankind has used for thousands of years instead of jumping on the eight year old bandwagon of same sex marriage, then obviously you are “homophobic” (“you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means”). Surely all these subjects are worthy of discussion on the merits, but dressing up a childhood bullying technique in pop psychology “adult” words shuts down all debate, and that is its intent.
Now, even a cursory perusal of opinion sites on the internet is enough to determine that there are a lot of haters and ignorant people out there, and that their numbers are distributed across the political spectrum. If you feel that it is your divine mission to identify these who by their own behavior have already identified themselves, then go ahead and godspeed to you, you have your work cut out for you. Understand though that not all who disagree with your political or moral positions are automatically somehow subhuman cowards or the spawn of Satan; and to treat all of a political persuasion or a religious belief system as though they were accurately represented by the worst of their cohorts may ironically be the very definition of a phobia.
IMHO: Democracy works best when people are permitted to express their ideas, argue their positions, convince others, or be convinced by others. Generally speaking, the freedom to hold a position and act accordingly even when others disagree with it is the hallmark of liberty, and a good reason why government should, as much as possible, be uninvolved with questions of conscience or morality except insomuch as it directly and significantly affects the rights of other citizens. When the debate of public policy is short circuited by suddenly enlightened judges or the shaming of political correctness, then the dynamic flow of a free society is stifled as large segments of the population feel censored. Too often the debate is ended artificially before it has run its course. As with all peer pressure, you may find a gimmick to impose your will, but you haven’t really changed anyone’s mind. There may be times when liberty needs to be set aside and brute force employed to change the direction of the nation, but the result is almost always deep and enduring divisions. Whenever I see the debate devolve into name calling and accusations of personality disorders, whenever I feel like coercion is being employed instead of persuasion, then I am reminded of the mischief making friends of our youth whose only goal was the imposition of their will, not the transformation of yours. Freedom loving people understand that they will not win every debate. In a civilized society we may at times need to set aside our own desires to abide with the will of the majority. If your position is a right one, if it makes so much sense, then put forth your case. Why not argue your point rationally? Why not allow others to challenge you? Why not eagerly debate the issues on the merits…. what? Are you afraid?
Very good article.