Disagreeism?

We often hear about "-isms" these days.
Feminism. Chauvinism. Marxism. Capitalism. Atheism. Fundamentalism. Racism... the list goes on. Anyone you can label as a "something-ist" is identifiable as belonging to the corresponding "-ism"

With a few rare exceptions (feminism being a notable one), to be labeled an -ism by those who label such things is to automatically be made equivalent to a warped philosophy, a wrong, possibly dangerous way of thinking. (Capitalism also used to be an exception, but look how the word is being used now...)

I would submit now that it's possible another -ism is being added to the list: "disagreeism".

Adherents of this way of thinking are marked by their stubborn and misguided refusal to agree with popular opinion, perceived popular opinion, or with those who feel that their positions should also be held by all correctly-thinking people.

For example: "It is a responsibility of government to make sure everyone's standard of living meets a certain level"

Disagree? You are clearly not compassionate, are probably a greedy, racist, capitalist pig, and might possibly be a disagreeist. (notice how the -isms run together. More on that later)

Nancy Pelosi recently made an impassioned plea to the disagreeists, that they might cease their divisive ways (which apparently also inherently lead to violence) and stop making statements that people might possibly misinterpret. I believe "incitement" is the term used.
Notice the implication: Those of you who voice your disagreement need to take responsibility, because it may cause other people to act violently.
The condemnation is not on those who take words and run with them, and make personal decisions to act violently, it's on the disagreeists who won't just relent and agree with us already.

(That comment about a "balance between freedom and safety" also happens to make me nervous. Those definitely shouldn't be a zero sum gain. Otherwise, they keep talking about how we're safe... how not free does that then make us?)

Now, let us be clear. Any group of people with a common, deeply held conviction can begin pegging others as disagreeists, if those who disagree are perceived to be a minority in that context.

To use the obvious example, both sides of the political spectrum more or less accuse the other of this on a regular basis. Both feel that normal, "everyday", "grassroots" Americans support them, and those who disagree are the "ultra-liberal left", conspiring Marxists who want us to become a Socialist state ruled by Big Brother, or "right-wing fundamentalists", gun-toting, Bible-waving fringe groups that are irrelevant and can be ignored as such. (even if hundreds of thousands of them show up on your front lawn in DC. Thanks to everyone who went!)

Clearly, we here at MC side more often with the gun-toting, Bible-waving fundamentalists, if you prefer to label them as such. However, we have never questioned your right to disagree. In fact, we encourage it. The dialogue tends to be fruitful.

And notice, Pelosi isn't questioning that right either. She's merely indicating ominously that your disagreements might lead to violence which you will then be held responsible for, that's all.

To cite another example of this, and also how -isms run together, let us look at Jimmy Carter's recent assertion that criticism of President Obama must be racially motivated. (This, of course, motivated by Joe Wilson's now-famous outburst)

"I think it's based on racism," Carter said in response to an audience question at a town hall held at his presidential center in Atlanta. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."

No doubt, many do feel this way. But I note that Condaleeza Rice was highly respected by many of the people who now greatly dislike President Obama. Could it possibly be that they actually reject Obama's ideology and policies, totally apart from the race with which he identifies? And what of the growing numbers of African Americans who also find themselves losing the faith they once had in President Obama?
But Carter is not finished.

"Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care," he said. "It's deeper than that."

Aha! There you have it. It would seem that what Carter is actually condeming is disagreeism. A sincere debate would never result in someone accusing President Obama of lying, because clearly Obama would never lie. The only outcome of a sincere debate would be you agreeing with Obama. Unless... you are a racist. This is currently one of the most commonly attributed motives for disagreeism. You disagree because... you are a racist. Or a capitalist. (ie, greedy person who wants to take poor people's money to line your already bulging wallet) Or whatever -ist you care to supply.

Having discovered the principle of disagreeism, we can trace its effects through Obama's presidency. Americans who didn't vote for President Obama? Fundies clinging to their guns and Bibles. Americans who disagree with Obama at town hall meetings? Fringe groups. (some clearly were, but all of them?) Americans who disagree with Obama by massively protesting in Washington? Irrelevant. Americans who disagree with Obama by accusing him of lying during a speech? Racists.

And now, a la Pelosi: Americans who -still- disagree with President Obama? Potential inciters of violence. And remember the "freedom vs. safety" line. If disagreeists incite violence, you must be kept safe. Unfortunately, that apparently can only come at an equivalent cost in freedom.

So: Disagreeists incite violence
Violence reduces safety
Safety comes at the expense of freedom

The message is clear: Disagree with us, risk losing some freedom.

We will see, Madame Speaker. But if the recent Washington rally is any indication, more Americans disagree with you every day.

-()4|<.