You run a risk attempting to label a person or a movement as being Un-American. That risk is conjuring the specter of McCarthyism in all of its witch hunting vileness.
Sometimes, however, that is a risk worth running. There are indeed political movements that run counter to democratic/republican principles. For example, the German American Bund movement was rightfully criticized as being outside the boundaries of the American political experience. The refusal of many southern Democrats to recognize the legitimacy of the 1860 Presidential election simply because they lost it was also a deeply un-American moment in our history. The campaigns of anarchic terror of the late 19th century would be another example. The hysteria that led to the excesses of the Alien & Sedition Acts would represent yet another moment.
It should be clear from the above that such un-American moments can be represented by fringe elements in our society (e.g., Anarchists or the German American Bund) or by those actually in the mainstream (e.g.,Federalists in 1798, Democrats in 1860.) The key concept is not how integrated any given group is within the society, or how prevalent its views are, but how the positions of the groups involved deviate from long standing principles such as Free Speech, respect for democratic elections, etc. Of paramount importance in this regard is the inviolability of the principle of adversarial politics, the belief that no political party can claim absolute moral authority to run without legitimate opposition. It is this last principle that is being challenged by the rise of what I call Obamism.
It should be stated up front that I do not know if Barack Obama is himself an Obamist, as I am defining the term, but undoubtedly many of his supporters, including influential ones in the press and in other cultural institutions, seem to be operating under the notion that opposition to the candidacy of Barack Obama is inherently morally suspect. It is such a belief that motivates such despicable action as the publishing of editorial cartoons so vile the only historical analogy I can think of would be the anti-Semitic propaganda of 1930's Germany.
This "approach" to politics walks hand-in-hand with the attempts by the left in America's colleges and universities to silence right of center speech, either through the use of "speech codes," which largely seek to protect left of center policies from criticism of any kind, or through the use of what is euphemistically called the "heckler's veto" which in effect uses the threat of violence to silence any and all opposition. In each case the justification is the same. The speech that is infringed is "morally suspect" (they will call anything they do not like "hate speech") and therefore of no great loss when it is silenced.
I remember when I was in grad school at the University of Illinois a professor, with the help of one of my fellow grad students, presented a experimental survey they claimed would uncover "hidden racists." Basically, the survey asked people's opinions on a variety of public policy programs/ideas. By and large any response that mirrored the Republican party platform was considered "racist." For example, if you supported lower taxes you were deemed more racist than someone who supported higher taxes. The motivation behind such an idiotic and intellectually bankrupt exercise was clear; Only left of center policies could be considered morally acceptable.
So what I am calling Obamism isn't merely the tactics of this particular presidential campaign; it is the culmination of a long standing process, albeit in a more refined and complete package. This can be seen in the "global warming" debates where any deviance from the left wing orthodoxy is met with shrieks of "denier," a term designed to impugn the character and moral worth of the person it is applied to and nothing more. It can also be seen in the way cultural institutions are being captured by the a "new Left" that believes one of its duties is to banish right of center voices from the conversation.
The result is a political left that is singularly unable to confront contrary opinions, ideas or facts without resort to violence or intimidation of one form or another.
TO BE CONTINUED
No comments:
Post a Comment