opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Dennis Prager
Dennis Prager
26 Jan 2016
National Review, Donald Trump and Moral Bank Accounts

National Review's special issue, "Against Trump" was courageous and important. There is no way to do good in … Read More.

5 Jan 2016
Yes, Muslims Should Be Asked to Condemn Islamic Terror

Last week, an opinion piece appeared in The Washington Post that tells you much of what you need to know … Read More.

29 Dec 2015
'I'm Not Ready to Get Married'

Part I in a series of widely held beliefs that are either untrue or meaningless: In every age, people say and … Read More.

For the Left, Opponents Cannot Have Decent Motives: The Ground Zero Example


I recently wrote about leftists' hatred for conservatives as people, not merely for conservative ideas. Demonization of opponents is a fundamental characteristic of the left. It is not merely tactical; they believe people on the right are bad. (Here's a test: Ask someone on the left if active support of California Proposition 8 — retaining the man-woman definition of marriage — was an act of hate.)

A related defining characteristic of the left is the ascribing of nefarious motives to conservatives. For the left, a dismissal of conservatives' motives is as important as is dismissal of the conservatives as people. It is close to impossible for almost anyone on the left — and I mean the elite left, not merely left-wing blogs — to say "There are good people on both of sides of this issue." From Karl Marx to Frank Rich of The New York Times, this has always been the case.

In the left's worldview, conservative opponents of affirmative action cannot be driven by concern for blacks — opposition is animated by racists; conservative opponents of illegal immigration are animated by racism and xenophobia; opposition to abortion is a function of sexism; President Bush went to war for oil and American imperialism; and conservative supporters of retaining man-woman marriage hate gays.

This is not true of elite conservatives. Leading conservative columnists, leading Republicans, etc., rarely depict liberals as motivated by evil. Conservatives can say "There are good people on both sides of the issue" because we actually believe it.

Almost any contentious issue would provide proof of the left's need to attack motives, but the proposed Islamic center and mosque near ground zero provides a particularly excellent example.

I have not come across a mainstream leftist description of opponents of the mosque/Islamic center being built near ground zero that has not ascribed hate-filled, intolerant, bigoted, "Islamophobic" or xenophobic motives to those who oppose the mosque. Contrast this with how mainstream opponents of the mosque describe the proponents of the mosque and you will see an immense divide between right and left in the way they talk about each other.

Here are but a few examples of how mainstream proponents of the mosque describe opponents and their motives:

Michael Kinsley, editor at large, The Atlantic: "Is there any reason to oppose the mosque that isn't bigoted, or demagogic, or unconstitutional? None that I've heard or read."

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times Blog, Aug. 19, 2010: "The far right wing has seized on the issue as an occasion for fanning hatred against Muslims."

Tony Norman, columnist, Pittsburgh Post Gazette: "... a handful of politicians who cynically conflate the religion of American Muslims with the nihilism of the 9/11 terrorists."

Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic blog: "The pursuit of power through demagoguery."

Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York (in a column titled "America Has Disgraced Itself"): "In today's GOP, even bigotry doesn't spare you from bigotry."

"GOP leaders call them (those building the mosque) terrorists because they don't share Benjamin Netanyahu's view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

"And oh yes, my fellow Jews, who are so thrilled to be locked arm in arm with the heirs of Pat Robertson and Father Coughlin against the Islamic threat."

And in a Politico column titled "Decency Lost": "Republicans are clawing over each other to demonize Muslims."

HuffingtonPost, Allison Kilkenny: "This mock piety is really a cover for Islamophobia."

"Indeed, America is extremely hostile — not only to Islam — but to anyone who gives off the air of being exotic, or different."

"Xenophobia is really a convenient cover for a deeper bigotry."

HuffingtonPost, James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute: "Shame.

Your bigoted appeals to fear and intolerance disgrace us all and put our country at risk in the world."

HuffingtonPost, Michael Hughes: "Even more hideous is the way in which these bigots try to hide their overt prejudice in the emotional guise of love and caring, purportedly because they believe we must be 'sensitive' to the families of the victims of 9/11."

New York Times editorial: "Republican ideologues, predictably ... spew more of their intolerant rhetoric.

"The country ignores such cynicism and ugliness at its own peril."

"Too many Republican leaders are determined to whip up as much false controversy and anguish as they can."

New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof: "Why do so many Republicans find strip clubs appropriate for the ground zero neighborhood but object to a house of worship?"

"(They) are cynically turning the Islamic center into a nationwide issue in hopes of votes. ... They're just like the Saudi officials who ban churches, and even confiscate Bibles, out of sensitivity to local feelings."

"Today's crusaders against the Islamic community center are promoting a similar paranoid intolerance."

Keith Olbermann, MSNBC: "(The) country has begun to run on a horrible fuel of hatred — magnified, amplified, multiplied, by politicians and zealots, within government and without."

New York Times columnist Frank Rich: "This month's incessant and indiscriminate orgy of Muslim-bashing."

"So virulent is the Islamophobic hysteria of the neocon and Fox News right — abetted by the useful idiocy of the Anti-Defamation League ..."

"The ginned-up rage over the 'ground zero mosque' (was motivated) by the potential short-term rewards of winning votes by pandering to fear during an election season."

It started with "a New York Post jihad."

"The Islamophobia command center, Murdoch's News Corporation..."

Why does the left attribute only nefarious motives to those who believe that the Islamic center does not belong near ground zero?

Because leftism holds these beliefs:

1. Those who hold leftist positions are, by definition, better people than their opponents.

2. Those who hold leftist positions have, by definition, pure motives; therefore, the motives of their opponents must be impure.

I conclude with this: I believe that a wiser man than the present imam would have decided to avoid precisely what he has inspired — intense division in America — and would have immediately retracted his decision to erect an Islamic center and mosque right by the slaughterhouse of 9/11 which happened to have been caused by his co-religionists.

But I also believe that there are good arguments and good people on both sides of this issue.

I can say that, however, for one reason.

I am not on the left.

Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness Is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is



4 Comments | Post Comment
I am a political independent, but have to side with those that are on the side of the 1st amendment on this one. The Cultural Center that the Muslims wish to build is 2 blocks north of the far corner of the ground zero site and actually a good distance away, but regardless of that the hatred and fighting against it is unamerican and shows us as no better than those in the middle east that would not allow freedom of religion for their own people. The Tea Party types within the republican party should step up and show their support for the constitution by siding with the building of this center. As far as the columnists of each side when you are of the party of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin you should have nothing to say about false demonization of the other sides points of view.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Earl
Tue Aug 24, 2010 5:58 AM
I just signed up to receive columns from And this is the second column I've read by you...Dennis Prager. You so bad....I don't mean 'you misbehave'...but you are such a bad writer. Do you get paid to do this? The column above is nothing but quotes, and just rambles on. You must have been a bratty kid who got picked on and now you pick up the pen and are a tough guy. Anyone who snivels behind the coattails of Limbaugh, Beck and Palin is just as full of themselves as they are. They're all about saying anything to rile up the angry mobs and never say anything about 'grown-up' solutions.
Only 1/3 of this world is Christian, and most of them seem intolerant, judgemental and rightous. Republicans and your new Tea Party leaders will say anything to make money, and flip-flop on every issue if it suits their own personal make money. You didn't quote your loudest mouthpiece....Newt Gingrich, Mr. Family Values with his three wives...asking two of them to marry him during his affairs while still married to the present one. Give me a break. What is his religion? Bigomy? There are better Muslims.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Betty
Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:48 AM
Earl: Your automatic assumption that anyone that disagrees with you does so because of hatred proves Dennis' point even further. No one that I know of on the right is saying that they can't legally build a mosque anywhere they want. It is the difference between "can" and "should" and it is a difference that you need to grasp before you start shouting out the hate and bigotry mantra. Can is a matter of legality. It is a shallow question that goes to the least common denominator. Is it legal for them to build near ground zero? Of course. No one disagrees. You are putting up a straw man when you suggest that conservatives are trying to say they can't legally build there. The point of contention is with a much more sophisticated question: SHOULD they build a mosque that near ground zero? That is a matter of ethics and morality. It asks the question whether it is wise to build a mosque so near 9 11 considering among other things the feelings of those who lost loved ones during the attack. Considering the vast majority of the American public that has a problem with them building so near ground zero. These are questions liberals rarely deal with because they're so concerned with the least common denominator question: can they? Simply because they have a legal right to build there does not mean they should. That is the true question the American people are grappling with and their overwhelming response is no. It is about time the other side raises their level of sophistication in their arguments and deals with their opposition on the same plane without calling them names.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Michael
Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:33 PM
Re: Betty: Thanks for sharing about how bad a writer Dennis is. Of course it doesn't matter that he has written some of the most popular books ever written introducing Judaism to a wider audience. All that matters is that Betty thinks he is a bad writer. That is the TRUE standard. Come on, Betty. Let's stop with the cheap shots and deal with the issue at hand.
If you are going to write criticism of another's points, you need to make actual points in return, not take cheap shots. I tried to find an actual point to answer in your rant, but I couldn't find a one. Talking about Newt Gingrich's personal life is a low blow even for a liberal, but I guess it is just par for the course. Saying that 1/3 of the world is not Christian doesn't even begin to answer the question whether it is appropriate to guild a mosque so near ground zero. And if you are so concerned about grown up solutions, you need to actually get past the simple question of can they build it and actually ask the grown up question of should they build it so near ground zero. Can you actually make arguments or do you just call people names and take cheap shots? That is the question.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Michael
Sun Aug 29, 2010 1:19 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Dennis Prager
Jan. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Deb Saunders
Debra J. SaundersUpdated 7 Feb 2016
Lawrence Kudlow
Lawrence KudlowUpdated 6 Feb 2016
Suzanne Fields
Suzanne FieldsUpdated 5 Feb 2016

12 Jan 2015 Islam Gets Special Treatment

4 Nov 2008 Will Americans Really Vote to “Fundamentally Transform” America?

22 Oct 2012 Big Business Is Not Conservative