Yesterday I posted some thoughts about Byron Williams, a wannabe Right Wing revolutionary, pointing out that a false rhetorical urgency in political discourse is likely to contribute to the unbalanced thoughts of people like Williams.
I want to clarify the obvious. In no way should we pin the blame on the Glenn Beck and his form of political vaudeville. As I pointed out, there really are urgent political issues, one’s we should get fired up about. But heading out to kill people in order to start a revolution—that’s certainly not what Beck or other idea merchants have in mind.
That said, I also think its obvious that there is something pathological about the shrill and feverish mentality of many pundits and commentators on the Right, many of whom I probably agree with on a number of substantive points.
And not just feverish, but also unrealistic. Are we becoming like Europe? Hardly. In fact, we couldn’t, even if Nancy Pelosi passed every bill she ever dreamed of. Nations are not policies, and America is a largely conservative society, unique in the industrialized world. We are at once more likely to endorse traditional social norms—and at the same more likely to distrust government as the source of authority to secure obedience to those norms. We’re moralistic libertarians, a national character trait unlikely to change.
In addition, Americans embrace a much higher degree of economic turmoil and disjunction—although not an infinitely high degree, which explains why, with the election of Obama, the pendulum has swung to the side of government intervention, subsidy, and regulation.
I think conservatives need to see these qualities for what they are— sources of the continued political and social strength of conservative ideas in America. We need to be more confident, and therefore less reliant on sky-is-falling rhetoric about government takeovers. And we certainly need to give up on the tired tropes of denunciation.
That said, I’m not optimistic about the future of political commentary. Over the last decade political spin and aggressive commentary have become a major form of mass entertainment. It pays to go extreme, because over-the-top verbal assault titillate listeners.
Although some people are genuinely hungry for ideas and find encouragement in sharply drawn postings, I sometimes think of the general trend of punditry toward denunciation and harsh judgments as what I call political pornography—an excitement of the will, a stimulation of commitment, a thrilling feeling of entering the fray. I’ve felt it myself, and have written in the same spirit on occasion.
Thus the web. Shrill political commentary and pornography. They both make money.
July 23rd, 2010 | 10:18 pm
You claim, “And not just feverish, but also unrealistic. Are we becoming like Europe? Hardly.”
It is quite realistic. Policies do affect culture, just as culture affects policies. Being “conservative” does not mean much when all outward signs of it, that is, any evidence whatever of its existence, is absent from government.
Just as a man who drinks 10 glasses of bourbon a day is not a teetotaler, so a culture, which embraces as policy many fundamental things contrary to conservatism, can hardly be called conservative.
July 23rd, 2010 | 10:49 pm
Your brain is a nice, innocent place. Look, puppies!
July 23rd, 2010 | 11:04 pm
A policy that affects culture:
The 60′s welfare state that bred a disastrous culture of dependency and entitlement.
The 60′s doctrine of radical tolerance and multiculturalism that, through institutionalization in schools, workplaces, and law, has bred a widespread inability to make moral distinctions between good, decent cultures like America and Israel and the evil (and even genocidally inclined) regimes and ideologies that oppose them. Not to mention the inability to offended at the amoral and immoral crud in popular culture. (Why is a crucifix on the wall unacceptable but porn stars performing on campus okay?)
July 23rd, 2010 | 11:06 pm
R. R. Reno: To repeat a question I asked in your earlier post, which politicians do you think are being unfairly demonized as socialists?
July 23rd, 2010 | 11:11 pm
R. R. Reno: You can find a lot of harsh political criticism in the pages of The New Criterion, or in a column by Professor Victor Davis Hanson. (Likewise, for that matter, in the writings of our Founding Fathers.) Do you feel that their opinions are out of bounds in a civil society?
July 23rd, 2010 | 11:12 pm
“America is a largely conservative society”
Not nearly as conservative as it used to be. Are you aware of how many Americans are in favor of socialism?
July 24th, 2010 | 1:50 am
Whenever I read the common and overwrought handwringing sentiments of some supposed conservatives I always think of a line in Partick Swayze’s “Next of Kin:” “Trouble? You ain’t seen trouble yet. But it’s coming.”
July 24th, 2010 | 4:04 am
Last year the Adlai(s) started printing the Black Book. They have been compiling it since the time of Lincoln. It has some funny stuff about Republicans. Worth reading if you think the end is near: http://adlai3.com/blackbook.html
July 24th, 2010 | 9:51 am
“In addition, Americans embrace a much higher degree of economic turmoil and disjunction—although not an infinitely high degree, which explains why, with the election of Obama, the pendulum has swung to the side of government intervention, subsidy, and regulation.”
Forgive me Mr. Reno, but that’s just wrong. President 0.0 and the Progressives have an agenda; that’s why “the pendulum has swung.” Polls show that Americans do not support his agenda; they don’t like his pendulum.
July 24th, 2010 | 10:41 am
Hilaire Belloc, years ago, wrote of cultural tipping points. One of his examples was the Barbary Coast, Tripoli being its center. This area had become a center for piracy and its culture reflected this fact. He made the point that this did not mean that everyone there was a pirate or sympathetic to their endeavors but that enough were to change the culture. If I remember correctly he went on to say that there is a point in every culture where some percentage (usually a small percentage) with the proper motivation and access to power can change a culture inspite of the desires of the majority. I think history bears this out. In our day there is in fact a battle for the hearts and minds of the people. This involves a dialectic and its anyones guess which way it is moving.Regardless of its direction the culture will change in ways unrecognizable to either side. I do agree that the Becks of the world go a bit over the top and their way is not mine but lacking them where will the countervailing voices come from. The ones that can rise above the din and be heard. I would prefer reasoned discourse with a little more light than heat but I am afraid that does not play well in the carnival of todays polity.
July 24th, 2010 | 12:02 pm
Re: Michael Currie
Michael, you make good points. But I see the new media creating intellectual ghettos of self-reinforcement on both sides.
So a Glen Beck is not a countervailing voice in some kind of public dialectic. Because the people who read/follow Glen Beck, et al., ONLY read/follow Glen Beck, et al. And the same is true for the Leftist flock that follows The Daily Kos and Truthdig. The various political sub-cultures might as well be on different planets.
And here’s the thing, though the ghettos are absolute minorities, they are large enough to make the spokespeople a lot of money. But not large enough to effect real political change.
So Limbaugh has his 20% and he’s happy with that. Engaging in genuine political debate to try to persuade the other 40% in the middle is a non-starter for Limbaugh. Because that would require acknowledging the real, complex trade space of policy which would alienate the core bill-payers.
I think Sarah Palin is similarly positioning herself for long term niche media leadership that generates a lot of revenue for her without the hassle of actually having to solve problems. She’ll never be respected by more than 20% of the population, but she won’t care as long as the money rolls in.
Comments?
July 24th, 2010 | 4:55 pm
Consider the central place that sports has in American life. Sports is life to many Americans. Sports and politics are becoming more and more alike in how they are experienced.
Should we add a penchant for competition to the list of American socio-political vices?
July 24th, 2010 | 6:21 pm
Anyone who writes a book called “Arguing with Idiots” is part of the problem, no matter what his answers are. It’s the exact equivalent of “Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot”–although the author of that book went on to Congress.
Can you imagine a similar book specifically for Christians: “Witnessing to Idiots”? The mindset required for such a title would make the author an automatic non-starter for genuine witnessing. Likewise, “Arguing with Idiots” makes the author an automatic non-starter for genuine argument.
July 24th, 2010 | 7:20 pm
I still remember the days when people would hand binders full of “crackpottery” around the production floor. It was all of the same things that the internet and late night talk radio thrive on. There will be crackpots even if there were no talk radio or internet. I have to go now and the fluoride in the drinking water is allowing fm radio waves to control my thoughts. /sarc
July 24th, 2010 | 9:08 pm
This is about money. It’s not about ideas; ideas are merely props for the shifting of money here.
July 24th, 2010 | 9:22 pm
SteveM,While it is true that Rush et al have their true believers and the left has theirs and never the twain shall meet they are however the cathode and annode of political discourse in this country. It is also true that the main battle is for the broad middle 40 or 60 % but the sad reality is that the middle only speaks in the ballot box and even then in response to terms established by the diametric 20′s. So while Beck is not himself engaged in the dialectic he helps to establish one of its’ opposing poles. One recent example of the ability of overwrought polemics to effect the body politic is the todo over Ms. Sherrods’ comments at an NAACP event. To your point about money, it is almost beside the point unless your point is that if we took money out of the equation all that would be left would be reasoned discourse and you couldn’t mean that. I say this even though I agree with you as to the role that money plays.
July 25th, 2010 | 12:48 pm
Three cheers for Prof. Reno. Excellent blog post.
“its obvious that there is something pathological about the shrill and feverish mentality of many pundits and commentators on the Right, many of whom I probably agree with on a number of substantive points.”
Exactly right. And the riposte that “the other side does it too” is no defense. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
“We need to be more confident, and therefore less reliant on sky-is-falling rhetoric about government takeovers. And we certainly need to give up on the tired tropes of denunciation.”
Once again, exactly right.
“I’m not optimistic about the future of political commentary. Over the last decade political spin and aggressive commentary have become a major form of mass entertainment. It pays to go extreme, because over-the-top verbal assault titillate listeners.”
Unfortunately, I’m afraid that Prof. Reno is once again correct here.
“I sometimes think of the general trend of punditry toward denunciation and harsh judgments as what I call political pornography—an excitement of the will, a stimulation of commitment, a thrilling feeling of entering the fray. I’ve felt it myself, and have written in the same spirit on occasion.
Thus the web. Shrill political commentary and pornography. They both make money.”
Powerful ending. Very well said. Pornography and what Pro. Reno describes as “political pornography” appeals to the lowest common denominator of human nature–except that political pornography masks its true nature by the frequent use of noble words (country, freedom, patriotism, etc.)
July 25th, 2010 | 1:08 pm
Punditry as pornography. Momentary but degrading satisfaction. The role of money means that both the anode and cathode of political dicourse will be financially satisfied, albeit with limited reach for their arguments (though I suggest, without empirical evidence, that left-wing bullet points are more likely than right-wing bullet points to slowly seep into mainstream discussions and media coverage, but that’s not really my point).
I would like to believe Prof. Reno’s assertion that we are more likely to endorse social norms and distrust government as the source of authority. In fact I do believe it. Which is precisely why I am so disappointed with the current administration and its supporters. While I don’t believe most in the country support the government as a source of authority, I believe the government believes that it is a source of authority (moral and otherwise). In this way, I fear that the government is uniquely disconnected from the people it governs in a way maybe not seen in America. The President, on the campaign trail said we were on the verge of fundamentally re-making America. Not enough of us took that seriously. If the people are as Prof. Reno hopefully asserts, “moralistic libertarians,” then this “fundamental re-making” was never really part of what the people of this country wanted or needed, even if the pendulum needed to swing a bit (a bit!) to the side of regulation, intervention and perhaps (perhaps!) even subsidy. We needed (and perhaps convinced ourselves we were buying) a bit of pendulum-swinging, but instead we have “fundamental re-making” of America. I hope that Prof. Reno is correct, and that America sees this, and reacts cooly but decisively at the ballot box.
As for the punditry, I for one wish we could banish words like “outrage” and “idiot” and “elites” and the like. A thoughtful and complete litany of the actions this President has taken, and (importantly) the way he has taken them, articulated to a libertarian center-right majority, ought to be enough to convince the country that perhaps we allowed the pendulum to swing a bit too far, and it is time to bring it back. Hopefully the libertarian center-right cannot maintain this level of cognitive dissonance for too long.
Now, assume the libertarian center-right is a majority and is stong enough to remain a majority even as policy-makers attempt to continue the move to the left. Should the congress and president continue to be non-responsive to their norms and values for a couple of election cycles, then the response could get very interesting indeed. Instead of the federal government suing Arizona, we could see a state like Oklahoma suing the federal government. Where would this lead?
July 25th, 2010 | 10:27 pm
Punditry as pornography.
One has to look no further than Gateway Pundit, First Thing’s very own hate blog, for an excellent example.
July 26th, 2010 | 3:18 am
In a way, this post is just as shrill as anything it criticizes.
July 26th, 2010 | 9:19 am
It seems that many commenters on Beck, including Professor Reno, don’t actually watch his show. I don’t watch it that often, but when I do tune in, I see families, normal people, and often some fairly intelligent pundits.
Listen, if you don’t think the Left is waging a stealth campaign for the hearts and minds of Americans, then we don’t have much to talk about. In my opinion, there is an agenda, a strategy, and it is targeted directly at those who make up the middling middle.
Beck is using popular tactics to inform these people about what the Left has in mind for them. What he says is often shrill and ugly, mostly due to the shrillness and ugliness of the topic. I don’t tune in very often, as I said. I’m already aware and I don’t really appreciate the populist tone. But as Prof. Reno said, I agree substantially with many or even most of what Beck says.
So I’m not exactly sure what the hand wringing is all about. Are we afraid that Beck will reflect back poorly on us? I suspect that many (not necessarily Prof. Reno, but many in these comments) are more concerned with Beck’s ideas seeing the light of day than they are with his tone.
The war is on, already. Beck is doing us a service by making those standing in the midst of the battle ground aware that bombs are falling around their ears. This is the new marketplace of ideas, where consumers are trusted to make decisions, but are not necessarily equipped to do so. Beck is doing his part. We should all do ours.
July 26th, 2010 | 9:34 am
“I for one wish we could banish words like …”
But what if, for example, words like “elites” and “socialism” are essential to understanding one’s opponents and their philosophy?
July 26th, 2010 | 9:38 am
“In a way, this post is just as shrill as anything it criticizes.”
Yes indeed. E.g.:
“vaudeville”…”something pathological”…”fever swamp”…”mindless denunciations”…”shrill”…”fear-mongering”…”fantasies”…”pathological”…”pornography”..
July 26th, 2010 | 9:56 am
Were the political cartoons of Thomas Nast reprehensibly “pathological”? Or were they an effective and laudable weapon in fighting government corruption?
July 26th, 2010 | 11:16 am
Listen, if you don’t think the Left is waging a stealth campaign for the hearts and minds of Americans, then we don’t have much to talk about.
The only issue I take with that assertion is the word “stealth.” Both sides use every tactic available to them. There are moderates and extremists on both sides: that’s Human Nature 101, and rhetoric becomes shrill as soon as that’s forgotten.
So I’m not exactly sure what the hand wringing is all about.
It’s about nutty and harmful statements like “Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people.”
July 27th, 2010 | 8:56 am
@Ken,
In regards to stealth campaigns: I often concede that Fox News is biased towards conservative ideas. The difference, however, between Fox and CNN is that it admits the difference and features both sides of the argument. This is the best general example of the difference in tactics between the right and left in the culture war. Conservatives are no angels, but liberals’ lack of frankness is surely disturbing to anyone who is interested in the truth. More often than not, conservative ideas are portrayed as neanderthal, Machivellian, or simply evil.
In regards to your unattributed quote, I have a problem with statements like that, especially when they are taken out of context. If you would be so kind as to provide said attribution and context, I will join you in condemning such sentiments. But I will not take it as an invitation to indict a whole group of public individuals as reprehensible.
July 27th, 2010 | 9:44 am
Umberto, thank you for the reply.
Here is a link to Beck’s remark, found on Google:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/fox-host-glenn-beck-obama_n_246310.html
–This morning on Fox and Friends, Fox host Glenn Beck accused President Obama of being “a racist.”
The group was discussing the recent Gates controversy, and Beck exclaimed that Obama has “over and over again” exposed himself as “a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. I don’t know what it is…”
When Fox’s Brian Kilmeadeon pointed out that many people in Obama’s administration are white, so “you can’t say he doesn’t like white people,” Beck pressed on. “I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people, I’m saying he has a problem,” Beck said. “This guy is, I believe, a racist.” –
I give that Fox host credit for challenging Beck, but then while that network is largely conservative (as you say), they bill themselves as “fair and balanced,” which would be a joke if there weren’t so many gullible viewers out there to believe them. I don’t watch CNN, but MSNBC does have some conservative commentators and even a conservative host during the day.
July 27th, 2010 | 9:54 am
Conservatives are no angels, but liberals’ lack of frankness is surely disturbing to anyone who is interested in the truth. More often than not, conservative ideas are portrayed as neanderthal, Machivellian, or simply evil.
And liberalism is portrayed as a desire for a “nanny state,” an excuse for licentious behavior with no consequences, etc. There are few voices on either side (although the ones who come immediately to mind — Brooks and Douthat — are conservative) willing to grant good will to the other side, or to even mention, when they don’t have to, that facts on which their arguments are made.
July 27th, 2010 | 1:54 pm
Stanley Kurtz of National Review has a book coming out in October: “Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism”. From the press release: “[the book] marshals a wide array of never-before-seen evidence to establish that the president of the United States is indeed a socialist. Tracing an unbroken thread of socialist activities and political partnerships….”
J. J. Reno: I’d like to see your analysis of why the book is wrong and why it is so morally reprehensible to characterize Obama as a leftist. Of course, there are a number of other books on that subject, which you could critique today. You have asserted that it is factually and morally wrong to call Obama a socialist, but you have not backed up your assertion with evidence. You have not given concrete reasons why you believe Obama is not a socialist, nor have you made any effort to systematically refute the arguments of those who say he is. Do your condemnations ultimately amount to anything more than trying to silence dissent? By your rhetoric, do you put yourself somewhat in the same camp as those who, unable to refute Obama’s critics, cynically choose to smear them as racists?
July 27th, 2010 | 2:45 pm
@Ken,
I’m not exactly sure what we’re arguing here. The original article was making the case that Glenn Beck was a threat to good, decent people everywhere. My point is that Glenn is performing a valuable function in informing ordinary people that there is a conspiracy afoot to drastically change their lives, and that he is trying to popularly explain some fairly complex cultural forces.
Watching some of the other news stations, really any other news source than Fox News or the Wall Street Journal, you could be forgiven for thinking that there is no such culture war being waged. There are merely “experts” interpreting the news for you and telling you what it best.
MSNBC started out as a CNN wannabe, and then moved to a niche market after they failed in being a mainstream competitor. They re-discovered themselves as the liberal version of Fox. That’s fine – I really don’t care. But they wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for Fox.
Do you suppose that it is remotely possible that Obama is, indeed, a racist? It sounds like Beck’s comments were made in the context of Gates-gate, when Obama famously said that the Cambridge PD had acted “stupidly”, without Obama’s having been fully informed of the situation. The man seemed to assume that a black man being questioned could only be the result of a racial bias.
Beck’s comments, within this frame of reference, are important. Is our “post-racial” president acting from a racially neutral point of view? It didn’t seem so. If the politics of race and identity are going to perdure into a black presidency, then others have a right to question that. But some would like to consider this a cultural third-rail, the mention of which should condemn someone to the outer darkness.
So, in short, I have no issue with Mr. Beck. Or, if I do, they are a matter of temperament and not of substance. Rail all you like. I’m glad he’s telling ordinary people what the moderately educated have in mind for them. He is doing them justice.
July 27th, 2010 | 3:24 pm
Do you suppose that it is remotely possible that Obama is, indeed, a racist? It sounds like Beck’s comments were made in the context of Gates-gate, when Obama famously said that the Cambridge PD had acted “stupidly”, without Obama’s having been fully informed of the situation. The man seemed to assume that a black man being questioned could only be the result of a racial bias.
. Is our “post-racial” president acting from a racially neutral point of view?
Is there really such a thing as a racially neutral point of view? I think it stands to reason and has been demonstrated by the Harvard study that everyone is “racist,” if that’s the term one wants to use for harboring racial fears and pre-conceptions that die hard. For my part, I think the term should be reserved for David Duke and that Black Panther party in Philly that made news recently . . . people on that level, otherwise we’re just shutting down conversation and precluding the chance that we can learn from each other.
Is Obama racist for presuming that Cambridge cop was acting in a way that so many white cops have acted in Obama’s lifetime, or was he only making a very understandable mistake? Would you be racist for feeling fear on a deserted street at night if you crossed paths with a couple of young black guys in hip-hop gear, or would you, sadly only be rational?
“Temperament” matters enormously. As Christians we owe each other kindness and understanding. Beck is presuming the worst on very slim evidence, and in so doing stirring up anger and distrust and other feelings that keep people from making rational judgments, that fuel that culture war you’re talking about. Brooks and Douthat are at least as substantive but argue their points in mature and healthy fashion. All that I’m saying here is so basic, so obvious an insight that “insight” is giving it airs. If we play by the world’s rules, we have no witness — we harm the gospel’s witness.
July 27th, 2010 | 4:24 pm
Mr. Ken,
I’m operating on a premise that you perhaps do not understand or sympathize with. Namely, that there is an element of our society that is working vigorously and effectively to radically re-order our society on a foundation that is inimical to the values of the average American, not to mention the average Christian, and they are doing so from a variety of motives ranging from ignorance to malice to some combination of the two.
Based on the above assumption, I am somewhat alarmed. As I said, you may or may not sympathize with the sentiment, but perhaps you can understand my alarm.
Beck is a showman and a populist. This is not a terribly strange role for someone in his position to play. I don’t notice him opening or closing his show with prayer, so I’m not sure we can assess his role as “Christian” or “un-Christian”.
A good example of what he is working against is your sudden reconsideration of what “racist” should mean. The NAACP makes claims that the Tea Party is “racist” and the middling middle nods their heads and says, “I thought so.” There is no critical consideration of the content of the statement – it is a blurb, a heebeejeebie, an almost-thought. This is the showbiz of modern political theatre, where truth or meaning is extremely malleable. Here at First Things, we may have substantial agreement on truth and meaning. Not so in the great middling middle.
Some of the malicious ignoramouses mentioned above love this malleability and seek to contort it to advance their aforementioned agenda.
So how does one interject themselves into this conversation? One uses extreme language, partly to get attention, partly to defuse the verbal timebomb laid by the MIs to confuse and derange the issue. One works to translate fairly complex cultural phenomenon into words and ideas, the very communication of which trip many of these same verbal timebombs.
Again, we are in a culture war. The term “war” is apropos, because it is a matter of life and death, salvation and its opposite. Unless that middling middle is awoken, there will be no reversal of the tide. Don’t like Beck? Start speaking up. Start doing something. But don’t complain that he’s a rabble rouser, because that’s exactly what he is, and what is needed right now.
July 27th, 2010 | 7:06 pm
“A good example of what he is working against is your sudden reconsideration of what “racist” should mean.”
In other words, sophistry.
Yes, we are in a cultural war of sorts, and it is unreasonable to demand that everyone speak like the stereotype of professors at a 1880 faculty convocation. Is there no place for Tom Paines, Samuel Adamses, etc?
July 27th, 2010 | 7:10 pm
If one wants First Things to maintain a practice of only the gentlest language, that is a position that I can respect (although not if the definition of “civil” amounts to banning honesty*) but it would be unreasonable to demand this of everyone.
* Under that standard, even Friedrich Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” might be banned due to its unsparing attack on the failings of the socialist idea.
July 27th, 2010 | 9:30 pm
Umberto, I understand your alarm and respect your feelings, but by and large I don’t share them. I don’t think conservatives alone get to define what America has been and what it should be now. Yes, Beck is a showman and a populist, and and also a buffoon, and he has unfortunately been embraced by conservative Christians. He is now identified with conservative Christianity.
A good example of what he is working against is your sudden reconsideration of what “racist” should mean.>
What I wrote has nothing to do with what you followed that sentence with below. If you think I’m wrong, please tell me why.
The NAACP makes claims that the Tea Party is “racist”
That’s not true. Rather, the NAACP points out that there are racist elements in the Tea Party, and asks the party to repudiate (not “refudiate” — sorry, I couldn’t resist) them, which is a way of acknowledging that by and large the party is not racist. And most liberal commentary on that request and the brouhaha that ensued also say the racists are in the minority.
One uses extreme language
Which your own, conservative “middling middle” takes literally.
July 28th, 2010 | 8:20 am
“That’s not true. Rather, the NAACP points out that there are racist elements in the Tea Party, and asks the party to repudiate (not “refudiate” — sorry, I couldn’t resist) them, which is a way of acknowledging that by and large the party is not racist.”
Wrong. The NAACP first condemned the Tea Party movement as a whole, and only later rowed back to the the “some Tea Party people are racists” position.
Furthermore, their call for Tea Party people to “repudiate” those “racist elements” is NOT intended as a way to acknowledge that the Tea Party movement as a whole is non-racist, but rather to continue to attack the Tea Party. (If the Tea Party does not submit to those demands then it must be racist as a whole.)
In recent decades, the NAACP has functioned as little more than a race-baiting attack dog for the Democratic Party and for groups farther to the left, and also as a supporter of extortionists like Sharpton and Jackson.
The “racist!” accusation is has been a standard method for many decades to silence dissenters and to put them on the defensive. (Mere denials of such accusations are a losing proposition in the propaganda war.) Rather, it is necessary to put the attacker on the defensive. (“There you go again” a la Reagan, and “my attacker has made a career out of defaming people. When will he decide to become a decent citizen?”)
The best course for any decent people attacked by the NAACP is to never make any attempt to please them but rather to counterattack as strongly as possible.
July 28th, 2010 | 9:00 am
Ken,
I understand that you don’t understand. I think First Things was founded to counteract the gradual “pushing out” of religious discourse from the public square. The contributors have always had a sense of the urgency of this matter, and have, by and large, counteracted it with balanced, reasoned, and intelligent commentary. But they have never misunderstood the gravity of the struggle in which they were engaged.
Professor Reno, in his post, is distressed at the tone of Glenn Beck, and other populist conservative commentators. These commentators take a different tack than First Things. Granted, First Things has been successful at making an imprint on the culture. Even liberals like you are paying attention to what is being said here.
Beck is taking the battle to the middling middle in a way that First Things has not.
Although we may not all countenance the idea of a layered society, perhaps that is how First Things sees things. Perhaps it’s reality. Is there an elite that does all of the thinking, that really determines the course of society? There was an interesting article in Christianity Today a few weeks back discussing a recent book by James Davison Hunter. It talked about how cultural content was mostly determined by elite institutions, such as First Things or Harvard.
Is this the tack we should promote, namely the modification of culture only at the highest levels? I don’t know. But it only seems fair to me that those whose lives are impacted are made aware that there are forces at work on their lives. Beck is doing that.
What I was referring to in regards to your comments on the idea of “racism” is that it is for moderately educated people to make words like “racism” malleable. For many, it is just a bogeyman that is thrown around. It is sophism, but it’s also a word battle that unfortunately, is engaged more by the left than the right. At it’s most brutal, it wants to redefine “sex” into “gender” or to define marriage as something novel and immoral.
The middling middle is the victim of these contortion of language – they beset their lives in many real ways. Beck is teaching them about how this is happening, and telling them it’s OK to be angry that it is happening, and how to resist it. This doesn’t strike me as a useless vocation.
Nothing that has been said about Beck concerns me – I see nothing immoral. So I’m curious about the motivations of men like Prof. Reno who criticize Beck, and I’d be interested in what he thinks the service Beck is providing, if any.
But you, Mr. Ken, I don’t think you really understand any of this. By your own admission, you don’t really see the urgency.
July 28th, 2010 | 9:57 am
The NAACP first condemned the Tea Party movement as a whole, and only later rowed back to the the “some Tea Party people are racists” position.
The statement that they actually issued, as opposed to one that was first proposed, was as I said it was. That is their position, and their case is irrefutable, and you guys would do better to take the log out of your own eyes, condemning the racists who glom onto your movement, than the speck out of theirs.
Does the NAACP overreact sometimes? Of course. But walk a mile in a black man’s shoes, experience racism and know the history of white racism as a minority member yourself, and have a little understanding. Do some people cry “racist” because they know that to many people it sounds like “checkmate.” Of course. And some right-wing Christians are as narrow-minded and mean-spirited as your enemies make you out to be. Don’t characterize the decent majority by the indecent minority. That’s what you’re asking (and getting) from the NAACP. If you want to be treated fairly and with a generous spirit, display the same.
The best course for any decent people attacked by the NAACP is to never make any attempt to please them but rather to counterattack as strongly as possible.
Maybe you should try to love your neighbors instead, even when you don’t find them likeable. Try that, and look for their good points, and you might even start to like them.
July 28th, 2010 | 10:00 am
Umberto, I agree with you about First Things’ historic mission.
Beck is taking the battle to the middling middle in a way that First Things has not.
That’s important, but let him do it with honesty and sobriety, and by that I don’t mean without humor, but rather conscientiously, not by stirring up a rabble who think they love the Constitution but never read it before it became a prop in the culture war.
There was an interesting article in Christianity Today a few weeks back discussing a recent book by James Davison Hunter. It talked about how cultural content was mostly determined by elite institutions, such as First Things or Harvard.
I’ve heard him interviewed.
And I’m not throwing around the word “racism,” you’re throwing it around by suggesting Obama might be racist. I’m saying that if an easy mistake like his is racist, we need a new word for the KKK. When people think of racism, they think of the KKK. Tell someone who’s made a simple mistake and then admitted it that they’re on the same level as the KKK, and you’ve foreclosed the possibility of a fruitful discussion, of any meeting of hearts and minds. My argument shares nothing in common with liberal attempts (and I have conservative beliefs as well) to redefine marriage and level the distinctions between the sexes.
But you, Mr. Ken, I don’t think you really understand any of this. By your own admission, you don’t really see the urgency.
I see the importance of these issues, which is why I post here. I also see that you can’t resist being snarky.
July 28th, 2010 | 10:19 am
“Maybe you should try to love your neighbors instead”
The implication being that I do not “love my neighbor”? Gee, thanks.
Do you really feel that it is wrong to call attention to the dishonest and malicious nature of one’s attackers’ methods? Do you really think that the proper response to attack is accommodation and appeasement? Do you really feel that it is immoral to fight back?
July 28th, 2010 | 10:33 am
“Does the NAACP overreact sometimes? Of course.”
No, it’s not a matter of sometimes overreacting. It is an essentially constant and unending tactic: Anything that at odds with their liberal and left-wing goals is likely to be attacked as racist. Anyone who disagrees is likely to be attacked as doing so from racist motives. Have you not noticed this?
And THIS is a tactic that deserves and requires the most vigorous counterattack. It must be discredited and people who use it must learn that there will be serious negative consequences.
“No, I’m not a racist” is not an effective defense. Many decades of bitter experience have shown this to be true. Not only is the target put on the defensive, but how do you “prove” you are not a racist? Furthermore, the victim of the attack is forced to spend time defending against the accusation instead of spending time arguing the policy positions that caused him to become a target of that smear. It has long been known that many liberals use this tactic for precisely that reason, cynically choosing to bear false witness for political gain. The recently leaked Journolist archives are only the most recent proof.
July 28th, 2010 | 10:49 am
Do you really feel that it is wrong to call attention to the dishonest and malicious nature of one’s attackers’ methods? Do you really think that the proper response to attack is accommodation and appeasement?
pst314, I think that a little attempt at understanding will show that there is no dishonesty, maliciousness or attacking on the NAACP’s part. Again, walk a mile in a black man’s shoes, and you’ll understand the NAACP’s view.
Anyone who disagrees is likely to be attacked as doing so from racist motives. Have you not noticed this?
I have noticed it in some cases, and in those cases I’ve made the same argument you’re making, on a liberal site. But you give no examples to show that it’s “constant” on the part of the NAACP. And more to the point, which you are not addressing, the NAACP is clearly right in this case. So even presuming for the sake of argument that you’re correct about their motives and their tactics, they still have a case which the Tea Party is morally obliged to respond to.
July 28th, 2010 | 1:30 pm
“And more to the point, which you are not addressing, the NAACP is clearly right in this case.
No they are not. The NAACP initially said that they would “repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties” and would fight back against the Tea Parties attempts to “push our country back to the pre-civil rights era”. Only when challenged did they partially back off. (And yet Shirley Sherrod says that Andrew Breitbart wants to “get us stuck back in the time of slavery”, an accusation that these people throw around routinely.)
Furthermore, the NAACP’s accusation of racism is partially based on false claims by members of the Congressional Black Caucus that the n-word was “repeatedly” hurled at them at the in Washington DC when they walked through a Tea Party protest–accusations that they were unable to substantiate despite the fac that they all walked through that crowd holding high their camera phones. Nor did anyone else come forward with video footage showing the use of that word.
The basis for the NAACP’s accusation is supposed to be racist signs and rhetoric at Tea Party rallies across the country. This is despite the fact that those signs have over and over been shown to be the work of anti-Tea-Party infiltrators. AND despite the fact that Tea Party organizers and protesters have made great efforts to push back against such infiltrators and trouble-makers. All this is well-documented, and yet somehow, conveniently, the NAACP never notices these facts. I wonder why. /sarcasm
So if the Tea Party has a “moral obligation” on this matter, it is to confront and defeat those who bear false witness.
The NAACP and other race-baiters have relied on false accusations for many years, confident that a compliant liberal news media will repeat whatever they say and will not make any effort to show that they lie. Cell phone cameras and the internet are finally allowing ordinary decent people to say “you lie!” and make it stick. This is what many view with alarm as “incivility”.
July 28th, 2010 | 1:36 pm
“pst314, I think that a little attempt at understanding…walk a mile in a black man’s shoes…”
How condescending of you. You know nothing about me and my history.
For the record, I used to be a very squishy liberal who bent over backwards to “understand” and who made endless excuses just as you are doing now. I read all the right “progressive” magazines, went on marches, and even refused to hold my tongue on matters of racial prejudice.
“…will show that there is no dishonesty, maliciousness or attacking on the NAACP’s part.”
Sorry, the record shows otherwise. Numerous examples of defaming dissenters as racist in their motivations. Oppose racial quotas as unconstitutional, divisive, and harmful to those they are intended to help? You’re a racist. Oppose massive welfare programs as harmful? You’re a racist. Oppose anything on the liberal agenda? Racist.
“…and you’ll understand the NAACP’s view.”
When you say “understand” you imply “agree”.
I think I understand them pretty well, and I do NOT agree.
July 28th, 2010 | 1:40 pm
Mr. Ken,
What are we talking about again? It seems to change every post. I don’t see anything immoral, dishonest, or incorrect about Beck’s approach or content. You dug up a snippet about him calling Obama a racist and seemed to think this was QED. I’m not convinced. I see a lot of flash and bang in criticisms of Beck, but not much substance. That’s really my entire point. What’s yours?
And I didn’t call Obama a racist, but thanks for interpreting me in the worst possible light, anyways. My point, for the last few posts, has been that the left engages in a “word war”, the discussion of which sets off explosions of acrimonious accusation. Your comments demonstrate this substantially. Paraphrasing: “Beck’s a racist!, See!”, “I’m not calling people racist, Umberto! You are!”, etc.
You know, Ken, I was thinking about you in the shower. No, not like that. I was thinking that there may be folks who troll known conservative websites with the intent of distributing some of the aforementioned landmines. I know that the DNC had encouraged members to call conservative radio shows in an effort to steer conversations toward DNC talking points, or just to obfuscate. I was just thinking of that when I was considering our conversation.
Listen, if you want to have a discussion, that’s awesome. But you seem to be talking past everyone quite a bit and seeing things from a decidedly partisan point of view.
Perhaps we can try a few simple questions to get things back on point:
1. Do you believe that cultural liberals are waging a stealth war to redefine existing concepts of American life like the nuclear family, conventional sexual mores, people’s relationship to the government, and the presence of religion in the public square?
2. Do you believe that this war is being waged, in large part, over the heads of the American people through the redefinition of educational philosophy, domination of the social sciences, and in the courts?
3. If you believe (1.) and (2.) above to be true, what do you think is the best way to counteract these forces?
4. Do you think ordinary people should in any way be involved in this discussion?
5. What exactly is your problem with Glenn Beck? Can you provide examples of immoral or inappropriate actions of his, or examples of maliciously incorrect information shared on his show?
July 28th, 2010 | 2:08 pm
All this alarmed condemnation of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and others, reminds me of an old truth:
The purpose of political correctness is two-fold: To make it impossible to tell the truth, and to humiliate, cow, and silence dissenters.
July 28th, 2010 | 2:21 pm
The NAACP initially said that they would “repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties” and would fight back against the Tea Parties attempts to “push our country back to the pre-civil rights era”.
Pst314, as I noted, as I pointed out, that’s not the language of the resolution they eventually adopted. You corrected them, and they took the correction. Now you could learn from their example.
As for Shirley Sherrod, she too overreacted, but her father was murdered by white racists, she and her husband lost their own property due to racism, and yet she’s dedicated her life to helping farmers white and back. And you, you’re upset not by Breitbart’s initial and continual lies, by that she overreacted to yet another white man who was doing her wrong. I really don’t like preaching, but where is the charity in your heart?
The notion that the Congressional Black Caucus made up the incident when they were called names and spat upon is very easy for you to believe, I can see, given your general lack of charity to liberal black groups. As for me, I’m not sure what to think. I would have expected evidence, but I see no reason to presume these people would lie either.
The basis for the NAACP’s accusation is supposed to be racist signs and rhetoric at Tea Party rallies across the country. This is despite the fact that those signs have over and over been shown to be the work of anti-Tea-Party infiltrators. AND despite the fact that Tea Party organizers and protesters have made great efforts to push back against such infiltrators and trouble-makers. All this is well-documented
Please document it.
Sorry, the record shows otherwise
That’s another very large and general claim that needs proof.
When you say “understand” you imply “agree”. I think I understand them pretty well
I’ve said here that they are wrong sometimes, and given examples. Your understanding looks to me like cynicism. Are you the liberal who’s gotten mugged? I think truth generally lies somewhere in the middle.
And, Umberto, I am not “Mr. Ken,” and I tire easily of debating with smart alecks. I’ve already answered some of your questions and replied to some of your points. I’ll only respond to one here for the moment: I didn’t accuse you of actually calling Obama a racist, but of suggesting he might be by raising the question, and for what I think is an absurd reason. If you want to change your tone, we can continue this debate. If not, I’ll leave you to your snide remarks.
July 28th, 2010 | 2:49 pm
Mr. Ken,
Not sure what you find objectionable. I’m happy to put the keyboard down, so to speak, as I’m getting rather tired of the dance.
Toodles,
U.
July 28th, 2010 | 3:15 pm
By the way, pst, I’m pro-life (and with my money, not just with my words), I approve of the Arizona immigration law, and I’m no fan of teacher’s unions. I’ve had many debates with left-wingers who put down Christianity, and conservative Christians in general. I’m hardly a squishy liberal myself.
July 28th, 2010 | 7:36 pm
“Pst314, as I noted, as I pointed out, that’s not the language of the resolution they eventually adopted. You corrected them, and they took the correction.
Uh, they only withdrew their initial language because they came under attack for its extremism. That was my point. They didn’t learn anything, they just moderated their language for the sake of expediency.
“Now you could learn from their example.”
Oh please.
“And you, you’re upset not by Breitbart’s initial and continual lies…”
Wrong again. Have you watched all the videos that have been released? Which reminds me: On July 27 GayPatriot.net posted an item titled “My Apology to Shirley Sherrod — Withdrawn” which you ought to read, just to start your learning process.
“I really don’t like preaching…”
I suspect that you enjoy it.
“…but where is the charity in your heart?”
Oh please. Stop with the fatuous demands for “charity” on behalf of those who will never be charitable to me. Instead, why don’t you spend some time telling them to stop defaming people?
“The notion that the Congressional Black Caucus made up the incident when they were called names and spat upon is very easy for you to believe, I can see, given your general lack of charity to liberal black groups.”
Again with the charity and hints of racism? How Christian of you. /sarcasm
“As for me, I’m not sure what to think. I would have expected evidence, but I see no reason to presume these people would lie either.”
You claim that you don’t know what to think, and yet you take their side. Curious.
As for reasons, well, they’ve lied before.
And isn’t it rather odd that they could not produce ANY evidence of racial slurs being hurled, even though they were all filming all the time they walked through the protest?
And isn’t it worth noting that there have been numerous accusations of racism ever since the Tea Party movement began? Accusations that were false? Based on infiltrators pretending to be Tea Party people in order to smear them? When the accusations were not simply invented out of thin air?
After so many false accusations of racism, it’s only reasonable to demand proof, and it’s only reasonable to seriously doubt the integrity of accusers who cannot provide evidence.
When there is no evidence of racism and lots of evidence of attempts to smear, reasonable people will know what to think.
“Please document it.”
I’m not going to do your research for you. Google is your friend. However, you could make a good start by searching Instapundit and Big Journalism and Gateway Pundit (even though you hysterically and falsely brand it a “hate blog”, good grief) for videos of Tea Party protests and their infiltrators.
“That’s another very large and general claim that needs proof.”
Again, do your own research. After all, if I give you one example you’ll demand another. If I give two, you’ll still say it’s not proof of a pattern. But regardless, this behavior goes back decades, and I have had some personal experience with it. And you might want to ask yourself if anything better could be expected of an organization that embraces Farrakhan and Sharpton.
“Are you the liberal who’s gotten mugged?”
Are you trying to psychoanalyze me? That’s a hoary old liberal misbehavior that I find very offensive.
“I think truth generally lies somewhere in the middle.”
When one side routinely tells lies, then “somewhere in the middle” is a recipe for appeasement. When one side takes extremist positions, then “somewhere in the middle” is a sure route to surrender.
July 28th, 2010 | 9:32 pm
Uh, they only withdrew their initial language because they came under attack for its extremism. That was my point. They didn’t learn anything, they just moderated their language for the sake of expediency.
Now how would you know that was their motive? That’s what I mean by lack of charity.
Have you watched all the videos that have been released? Which reminds me: On July 27 GayPatriot.net posted an item titled “My Apology to Shirley Sherrod — Withdrawn” which you ought to read, just to start your learning process.
Done. Can you really not fathom why Sherrod might think the worst of Breitbart, especially given what she’s endured?
Stop with the fatuous demands for “charity” on behalf of those who will never be charitable to me.
Love your neighbor as yourself if he loves you, is that it?
Again with the charity and hints of racism?
You’ve demonstrated you lack of charity. It’s never crossed my mind that you’re a racist.
You claim that you don’t know what to think, and yet you take their side. Curious.
Not knowing what to think on an a disputed claim is not taking sides.
And isn’t it rather odd that they could not produce ANY evidence of racial slurs being hurled, even though they were all filming all the time they walked through the protest?
It’s odd. It’s also not unlikely that black congressman would be called racial epithets at a moment of great emotion.
And isn’t it worth noting that there have been numerous accusations of racism ever since the Tea Party movement began? Accusations that were false? Based on infiltrators pretending to be Tea Party people in order to smear them? When the accusations were not simply invented out of thin air?
I asked you to document this. I’m open-minded, but I’m suspicious of extremes on both sides, I avoid their websites or take what I read there with several grains of salt, and I’m not going to waste time googling for conspiracy theories.
Are you trying to psychoanalyze me? That’s a hoary old liberal misbehavior that I find very offensive.
It does sound like you’ve gone from one extreme to the other.
When one side routinely tells lies,
Both sides tell lies, and realizing that is pretty much the beginning of wisdom when it comes to politics. We’re all sinners. We all act badly, and pretty routinely at that.
July 29th, 2010 | 9:01 am
So you don’t want to know the truth about the Tea Parties, or about smear-mongering organizations like the NAACP? Okay.
And you accuse those who speak the truth and who condemn defamation as lacking in “charity”? How nice. Very passive-aggressive of you.
You remind me a bit of those who demand that we “understand” our islamo-fascist enemies.
July 29th, 2010 | 9:45 am
pst, just answer this one question if you would please. Is there nothing in Shirley Sherrod’s personal history, and nothing in African-American history, that might make Sherrod and the NAACP in general be a bit paranoid and see racism in cases where it doesn’t really exist?
July 29th, 2010 | 5:28 pm
Oh, are you now conceding that Sherrod and the NAACP are seeing racism where it doesn’t exist? Thank you.
July 29th, 2010 | 5:30 pm
But when there is lots of physical evidence showing that the Tea Party is ANTI racist, and no credible evidence that it is, why would you want to make excuses for those who accuse it of racism? Do you have a moral double-standard?
July 29th, 2010 | 8:43 pm
Concession? I said as far back as yesterday morning that I think the NAACP overreacts sometimes.
As for your second question, I’m sorry, but you’re raving. I might as well answer why the moon is made of green cheese. And as I expected, you won’t answer my own question, which answer would put your anger in a bad light. A true debate depends on the willingness of both parties to answer each other’s challenges.
July 29th, 2010 | 9:43 pm
So you aren’t interested in the evidence that shows the NAACP and others are telling lies. Okay, have fun.
July 29th, 2010 | 10:19 pm
I’m very interested in it if it really exists. I’ve just learned from experience to be skeptical of the most extreme claims of the left and the right. Again, though, if you’ve got it, post it and I’ll consider it.
August 2nd, 2010 | 10:18 pm
“Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.”
–Mary Frances Berry, African-American Maoist and Carter appointee, posted July 20, 2010 on the Politico website
August 2nd, 2010 | 10:19 pm
“If you’ve got it, post it.”
Google is your friend. NAACP, false racism charge, etc, etc, etc. Start with the sites I mentioned.
August 4th, 2010 | 9:47 pm
R. R. Reno: Here is a link to a recently-updated article on Obama’s membership in the socialist New Party.
In your earlier post you condemned as “mindless” and “destructive” the “denuciations of various Democratic politicians as socialists”. wold you please read up on this and then give us your thoughts?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact