Commie Pinkos: Where Are They Now?

Commie Pinkos: Where Are They Now?

Remember the good ol’ days? There used to be a time when rebuttal to a comment to which you disagreed was simply “What are you -- a communist?” Ah, those were the days. Simple. Straight to the point. And time-honored. Of course, you couldn’t just go around calling EVERYONE a communist. You had to change it up a little by calling replacing the term “communist” with “pinko” every so often. If you didn’t change it up, people might think you only knew one word. Then the wall fell. The Soviet Union became less Soviet and even less Union and “The Price is Right” added a game called Plinko. This confused everyone because they could no longer use the old reliables.

”What are you -- a communist?”
“The Soviet Union dissolved. We are no longer the enemy of communists. They are now our friends as we all strive for a common goal: meeting the Swedish Bikini team!”
“You still seem like a Pinko to me.”
“Oh, thank you! Plinko is my favorite game on the Price is Right!”

It just stopped working! Those of us who couldn’t defend our beliefs with reason and thought had to find another route to win arguments.

Thus was born the term “liberal.” Oh if I had a nickel for every time that word was used as an insult.

. . .

Oh, sorry about that pause. I was just dreaming about what I would do with all of that money.

Of course, you can only get so far running around calling people liberals. Sometimes you want them (or, at least, their votes) on your side. So then the people you disagree with aren’t liberals; they’re victims of the “Liberal Media!” [cue thunder crash]

I’ve always wondered about this liberal media thing. Usually, it is brought up when a person notices one small non-blatantly-conservative thing in a news report: someone suggests roads are good, the picture of the Democrat was bigger than the picture of the Republican, the Democrat’s name was first in the headline about the election, someone points out that W mispronounced nuclear, the front page is one big drawing of an elephant with a big red X superimposed over it. You know, ticky-tack things like that.

The media is neither liberal nor conservative. For the most part, it is corporate. What will sell the newspapers? What will get ratings? That’s what drives the media; not political ideology. Granted, it’s a lot easier to get ratings telling a story about someone who is working three jobs to put food on the table than it is to get ratings telling a story about someone who can’t buy that eighth yacht because of a tax increase. I believe a person calling the general media liberal or conservative says more about the person than it says about the media; especially since political leaning seems pretty relative. If you say the media is liberal, you’re probably pretty conservative. If you say the media if conservative, you’re probably pretty liberal. If you say the media is unbiased, you’re illiterate. (And deaf, for those of you who watch televised media.)

So liberal and liberal media were overused and became as meaningless as communist came to be.

Then came “agenda.” Agenda used to be a good term. Having an agenda meant you were organized and prepared for a meeting, a conference, or to answer folks who say “so, what’s on the ol’ agenda for tonight?” Now it refers to devious plans. “Marriage is the latest item in the gay agenda!” [duhm, duhm, duhmmmm] A lot of times agenda is used for individuals. “You know he has an agenda, don’t you?” You don’t often hear of groups having agendas. (You also don’t often hear agenda used in the plural, either.) You don’t hear about the Big Oil Agenda or the Big Tobacco Agenda. Those are lobbies. (Because they can afford lobbyists, I presume.) You don’t hear about the Labor Agenda. I think, for groups, it is pretty much just gays who have agendi.

How about “Class warfare.” That’s a good one. Beat the snot out of a group and when they say, “Hey, knock it off!” accuse them of class warfare.

For a brief period, people who pointed out mistakes of the W administration were accused of being “Revisionist Historians.” Unfortunately, that one fell by the wayside. It actually has a nice rhythm to it. I don’t know why it never caught on. It also might use up too many linear inches in a newspaper and too much linear time for allotted sound bites on television. Short and snappy; that’s what’s needed around here, my friends.

The fun one was “activist judges.” These are judges who ignore the law and rule based on the recent protests and civic projects in which they’ve participated. (Okay, they’re the ones who suggest gays are human . . . part of that gay agenda I’d earlier written so much about.) Charles Pickering is a judge Bush installed of whom the People For the American Way note “has been reversed 15 times by the 5th Circuit for ignoring or violating ‘well-settled principles of law’ – 11 of those 15 in cases involving constitutional, civil rights, criminal procedure, or labor issues.” That begs the question, if W is so opposed to activist judges, why does he nominate them?

Of course, I cannot let pass without mentioning Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn’s donation to the national discourse. Yes, when you absolutely, positively cannot defend your cause yet cannot turn a clever phrase, we bring you [drumroll, please] “Shut up, stupid.” Ta-daaaaaa! I usually look at the use of that phrase to point out that I’ve hit bottom and I should turn the program off. (I’m a recovering addict to panel debates on television. I’ll even watch The View.) I do think, however, that “Shut up, stupid” would be THE quintessential phrase for the Tough Crowd drinking game.

All of these terms and phrases listed have one thing in common: they do not actually prove or disprove anything. They do not bring anything of value to a discussion.

More than that, the people using them seem like they should be talking into a mirror. It’s seems that when people complain about an agenda, the reason is that it interferes with the accuser’s own agenda. When a person complains about an activist judge, the accuser usually seems to want the judge to be an activist for that person’s cause. When a person yells “shut up, stupid,” it is that person whom should really shut up. Stupid.

So if I read a letter and any or all of these terms are used; I assume that the writer is just regurgitating the talking points of his or her indefensible cause and have nothing productive to add to the discussion.

“Uh-oh, we need to stop for gas.”
“What are you, some sort of commie?”
“No, look, the arrow on the gas gauge is pointing to ‘E.’”
“You bleeding-heart liberals!”
“Fine, let’s make a deal. If I keep driving and we run out of gas, you get to walk to the gas station.”
“No, because if I anything went wrong, you’d send one of your activist judges after me.”
“Shut up, stupid!”

I recently read an interesting quote from Al Gore: “When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler.” Golly, there’s a lot of hollerin’ going on. And it is difficult to keep up with the changing rants and jargon for name calling. It used to be so much easier.

Maybe it is time to bring back the Commie Pinkos.

return to Commentary index

The opinions expressed here are solely those of the writer and do not neccessarily reflect those of the rest of the family.

mark@wentzmania.com.