The Dixie Chicks, on trends in country music, my emphasis:

[Martie] Maquire says she is not trying to say the country music audience is mostly rednecks. "But over the years, and especially, since country music's turned into this redneck theme, it's become kind of a negative," she says.

Anglican ("Episcopalian" in the US) clergyman Dr. Giles Fraser, on churches in his denomination that don't want to accept gay bishops (emphasis mine):

“These rebel churches want to destroy the traditional breadth of the Church of England and turn it into a puritan sect. They must not be allowed to succeed."

An Associated Press article on what it means the Republicans lost the majority in the House and Senate:

"Voters in every corner of the country made it clear they are tired of divisive attacks on a woman's right to choose," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. [...]

"It's the end of an era for divisive, gay-bashing politics -- at least in the minds of the American people," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign.

And here's a headline and article in 365gay.com, reprinted on Huffington Post, which admits the game outright by equating two opposites: It is now "radical" to simply be "conservative"!

Radical Right Christian Groups Want "Sexual Orientation" Question Cut Out Of Govt Questionnaires...

Conservative Christian groups have begun an intensive lobbying campaign against a new questionnaire for prospective high-level gubernatorial appointees... [underlines mine]

Prejoratives aside, in the mind of Dixie Chicks' Martie Maguire, country music suddenly, recently became a "redneck" phenemenon. Where was Martie raised -- on Mars? Surely these "rednecks" should drop their newfound interesting in and influence upon country music, and go back to their more traditional interests -- punk rock and body piercing, I expect. ;-)

According to Giles Fraser, we're supposed to believe that churches who aren't happy with gay bishops are the ones who are trying to change the Anglican church. (We all remember how King Henry the VIII's first act as head of the newly-formed Anglican church was to appoint a gay bishop!) Gay bishops are not the new thing: the real "change" is coming from those who won't go with that flow.

And then we learn it is objecting to abortion -- not a Supreme Court decision in 1972 which forced abortion on every state, with no popular debate or democratic process -- which introduced "division" regarding abortion.

And likewise, we learn again from gay activist group HRW that it is the ones who are refusing to go along with this new "gay marriage" thing who are being "divisive". Presumably, a normal human being should embrace whatever they recommend, and not to object to their power grab. It's apparently "divisive" (and thus wrong) to have a public debate before changing everything.

All of these examples, among so many more I hear every day, are cases where a more radical or non-traditional element falsely imputes radicalism to their opponents, while falsely claiming the "traditional" position for themselves.

In the old days, if you objected to some "progressive" or "socialist" idea, you were called a "reactionary". At least that was an honest term: you were indeed reacting to an attempt to radically re-make society.

But today, if someone introduces a radical idea -- like church bishops who are sexually active with members of the same sex (and the idea that is good and holy), or a law stating two men can be "married" and thus treated exactly the same as a man and a woman -- there seems to be an incessant, dishonest attempt to claim that as both the "progressive" AND "traditional" stance, and to label anyone publicly objects "divisive".

The presumption underlying the "divisive" insult seems to be: We have the right to remake society as we wish; and it is morally wrong to get in our way or object to what we are doing. -- it is, after all, the very act of objecting which is being criminalized when a term like "divisive" is employed.

So I hope you can understand why I see this tactic as deeply totalitarian: looking to the terms in which they frame things, we can see it is speech and debate itself to which they strongly object. Not the content of the speech, but the speaking and objecting itself.

And, for those who cringe or think it unfair or one-sided when I talk about "liberals", I'd like you to note the voices who do this are almost always "progressive" ones. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to say so and back it up in the comments section below.