"Suicidal liberalism" is something of a catch phrase. It's old news that liberalism is suicidal. But I'd like to highlight a couple of examples here so that we conservatives can look soberly at the very real possibility that our liberal leadership and their liberal followers would prefer that we die, that they die, that large numbers of people die, rather than that anything be done that goes contrary to their first and greatest commandment: Thou shalt not discriminate.
I already mentioned in Part I of the Disinviting Islam series a rather amazing statement by a liberal blogger: "[I]t is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip."
By this time we should know that this is not all that atypical. It has resonances in General Casey's shocking statement, a statement that should have lost him his job and made him a pariah with all patriots, "[W]hat happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here."
And now, in the wake of the Portland attempted Christmas tree bombing, we have more examples.
The Mayor of Portland of course rushed to tell everyone that this has nothing to do with Islam, another case of "Let's be sure not to learn anything from this."
“Bad actions by one member of any group does not and should not be generalized or applied more widely to other members of that same group,” he said.
That is in itself an example of suicidal liberalism, since if we do not allow our diversity to be a casualty, if we don't start learning something, we will have a lot more casualties, and the mayor obviously doesn't really care much about that. Lawrence Auster says it well, in response to the mayor's statements:
The Liberal Prime Directive is: Thou shalt not make negative judgments about, discriminate against, or exclude people who are different from us. So, when people different from us attempt to mass murder us, what the liberal sees is not the threat to us, but the threat to liberalism. His immediate response therefore is not to defend us from those who are attempting to kill us, but to defend and reinforce liberalism from the truth which threatens liberalism.
In the Portland case, suicidal liberalism goes even farther. As readers may already be aware, Portland made a deliberate decision not to allow Portland's finest to cooperate with FBI investigations into possible terrorist activity because they were afraid that such investigations might involve religious profiling. The former mayor of Portland, Tom Potter, explicitly noted that "something" might "happen" as a result of this decision, but that was clearly a risk he and the city council were willing to take. In other words, it was more important to them to preserve their version of an open, tolerant, and diverse society than to survive the trip. No thanks to the suicidal local rulers of Portland, a terrorist attack was averted.
It wouldn't perhaps be so bad if the only people who were to get blown up in terrorist attacks were the exact individuals who have stated their preference for preserving a diverse society over surviving the trip. If that were all, we could say that they asked to be martyrs for the cause of diversity and got what they wanted.
But of course it doesn't work that way. They're willing to be suicidal on behalf of everyone else, including all the innocent, normal Americans who wanted to go to see a Christmas tree lighting or all the innocent, normal Americans who want to travel on airplanes (preferably without being groped) or in other ways live their lives. And the liberals are willing to sacrifice us, too.
I have practically gotten to the point of despairing of any sort of reality check making any sort of dent here. When we see that, in response to facts, the would-be diversity martyr just states fervently his commitment to his religion, we see that what should be reality checks are just going to make him all the more fervent.
The only hope is for those who aren't really to that point yet. Maybe, even if they are secularists and not particularly conservative, such members of the "middle ground" can be awakened. (The TSA insanity may help here.) I suppose we can but try, but more and more examples indicate that, for all too many, it is too late.