“I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican,” said Harry Reid, as he lifted his foot clumsily and stuffed it in his mouth. It seems that Harry’s become accustomed to this pungent flavor, as his most recent racial guffaw came sans apology. But this lack of remorse on his part isn’t necessarily a product of stubbornness or certainty that he’s correct; it’s the result of a much more deep-seated belief in liberal thought.

The myth has perpetuated for decades that the Democratic party is the face of religious and racial acceptance while the Republican one is antiquated and hostile. Tolerance from the Left is indeed widespread – so much so that it has turned the definition and utility of ‘tolerance’ on its head. The permeation of political correctness has had the profound drawback of transforming classical liberalism, defined by compassion and magnanimity, to one characterized by universal concession and spinelessness.

It is the reason why many of the media’s leading writers refuse to put the ‘Islam’ in Islamic terrorism, it’s why much of the American populous holds an impassioned resentment towards bankers and financial capitalists, it’s why our Universities bind themselves to race-based affirmative action instead of socio-economic, and it’s why the rift in our political system has widened this month as a result of the Left’s intractability on building a mosque at Ground Zero.

Alexander Hamilton once said, “those who stand for nothing fall for anything.”  It would seem he was speaking directly to modern-day progressives, who are eager to fall at the knees of anyone who comes forth with a complaint against traditional American ideals.

But the absence of an ideological resoluteness on the Left is not limited to political talking points – it often transcends the party line barrier and justifies the actions and words of liberals themselves. Because when you’re the professed beacon of inclusion and diversity, you’re entitled to an apparent unlimited supply of ‘get out of jail free’ cards. When Charlie Rangel cowardly smears an entire congressional body by attempting to hide his greed and duplicity behind racial persecution, it’s ok. When Harry Reid vastly over-steps his bounds and casts sweeping judgments on an entire ethnicity, he’s unapologetic.

Even in the face of such egregious episodes of reprehensible behavior, the Left continues to successfully perpetuate its image of a morally superior group of people, while simultaneously labeling the right as prejudiced ideologues and religious zealots. It’s a near-brilliant tactic; it frees the liberals from moral obligation, yet at any moment they can identify themselves with a religious denomination if need be. It seems ridiculous that the Left can rid themselves of this political ball and chain, yet as religious conservatives are torn apart for their hypocritical actions, the members on the opposite side of the political spectrum go virtually unchecked.

Given this method’s political utility, the question remains whether progressives’ version of tolerance evolves from a heartfelt compassion to accept any and all views – no matter how absurd – or if it is a deceitful ploy to gain political capital. After all, to the undiscerning eye, a person who accepts anything and everything is unfortunately in today’s culture an appealing one.

The only window the public has into this harmful ploy is the slip-ups from the likes of Harry Reid. His satisfaction with Obama the ‘light-skinned’ man with ‘no negroe dialect’ suddenly makes him sound a lot like the bigots he incessantly preaches against, and his ever-so-comprehensive knowledge of the Hispanic voter is as far from visionary and understanding as one can get. In making such a claim, his delusions of moral superiority elevate him to a position where he can think as, think for, and cast a decision for an entire race of individuals.

CNN this week featured an article denouncing Michelle Obama’s critics by attaching their complaints to racial insensitivity. “But Obama’s role as the nation’s first African-American first lady adds a racial layer to the microscopic scrutiny her predecessors endured. Some of the criticism may be driven by partisan politics. But others say the attacks are rooted in white resentment of the ‘uppity Negro.’ They say there is no precedent for a Michelle Obama: a wealthy, independent black woman representing America who is not an entertainer.” Instead of delivering an assessment of the first lady’s words and actions, CNN chooses to ignore her as a debatable political figure, creating a stage where they can focus on her in the racial spotlight.

Which is more racially insensitive: removing Mrs. Obama from acceptable discourse by pointing out her skin color, or maintaining her position as a figure to be critiqued, just like her predecessors? Which is more fair: analyzing a college applicant in the same pool as his peers, or placing his resume in a stack labeled ‘minority?’ Which is more appalling: investigating a black Congressman for ethics violations, or accusing a board of predominately white men of deliberately targeting African-Americans?

Declaring that illegal Mexican immigrants should be extricated from our country is not racist – saying you have the ability to think for all Mexicans is racist. The superiority complex exhibited by Harry Reid and the false claims of racism projected by public figures is the most detrimental of its kind. It stunts progress in race relations, discredits individuals, and distinguishes the minority by their skin color. In the world’s most accepting and diverse nation, such selfish behavior is one of the few things preventing us from eliminating the last remaining strains of real, dangerous racism in our country.