I'm noticing some disturbing trends in the rhetoric of left-wing blogs and commentators.
Now, I don't mean to suggest that this is the first time in my life such a thing has happened. I depart radically from the 'typical liberal' point of view on a few issues, notably things like gun control, the death penalty, and political correctness.
What I'm noticing lately though, is more disturbing and insidious than just a minor disagreement over the details of political alignment.
Take, for example, this Huffington Post blog entry by Sam Stein about the nomination by AK Governor Sarah Palin of a guy named Wayne Anthony Ross for state Attorney General. The headline of the article reads, “Palin's AG Pick Defended KKK Statue, Mocked Offended Student.” The article goes on to criticize Ross – about whom I know precisely nothing, beyond the negative connotations I associate with anything or anyone endorsed by the Hockey Bomb – for “defending” a status of a Klansman and mocking a student who was offended by that statue.
The problem is…the student was wrong in her reaction. The statue was the result of an art assignment in which students were instructed to depict a 'nightmare' or a 'monster.' A bible-wielding, cross-bearing Klansman certainly fits that description. If anyone should have been offended, it would be the Klan (and frankly who gives a rip what offends those idiots). Ross wrote an article about the situation in which he was condescending and obnoxious in speaking of the protesting student. This is a problem for someone who is being considered for the position of lead protector and servant of all citizens.
Beyond his smug attitude though…the guy was basically right. The statue shouldn't have been removed. Even if it wasn't critical of the Klan, it shouldn't have been removed. I think the Klan, and bigotry in general, is as odious and disgusting a human behavior as one can find, but I also believe fundamentally in the right to free expression. In order for me to have the right to say what I believe, then it must be necessary for the Klan, or the American Nazi Party, or whatever other group of ignorant bigots, to say what they believe, so long as they aren't inciting violence. I don't have to like what they say. I may be deeply offended by what they say. That does not mean they have no right to say it, nor does it mean I have a right to prevent them from saying it.
The right to free expression has been generally agreed, as asserted by our founding fathers, to be an inherent right of human beings everywhere. The right to not be offended, however, is not. There is no such right, as the right to not be offended. Furthermore, much like the 'tax protesters' I wrote about earlier, leaning on the history of racial prejudice in this country to backstop a poor or unsupportable argument only serves to minimize the rightful sense of offense that people feel when considering that history, and to undermine and degrade the legitimate injury – moral or physical – sustained by those who ere victimized by that prejudice and by those who fought to end it.
I could sympathize with the original protester's offense if the statue was intended to condone, celebrate, or endorse Klan behavior, but in this case not even that degree of offense is justified – the artwork was clearly intended to be critical of the Klan…and at that point, the degree of sincerity in the student's sense of offense is directly proportional to her lack of critical thinking skills. It was a knee-jerk reaction – “I'm black, that's Klan, therefore I am offended” – and while I haven't researched the entirety of the story, I've seen no indication that the student backed off when her error became clear. Indeed, the 'offending' display was eventually removed by the teacher who assigned the project.
I know nothing of Wayne Ross, and given his political endorsements there's every possibility I would think very little of him. But Stein's article is every bit as wrongheaded as the student's original protest, and furthermore it's deliberately written to cynically take advantage of the propensity of people to only read a little bit of something before they form an opinion about it. Indeed, the comments section of the blog post reflects clearly that for some readers, the story begins and ends with “Palin's AG Pick Defended KKK.”
This, then, is the problem. Bloggers, readers, commenters, and activists on the left are engaged in the same kind of hair-on-fire knee-jerk reactionism that I and other self-described liberals have been complaining about coming from the right for years, and that is an absolute farce. We on the left like to think of ourselves as intellectuals and thinkers, who don't just react blindly to everything…yet here we are doing just that, and here is 'our' media deliberately provoking that blind reaction for the sake of readership and attention. It's tabloid blogging, no better than the kind of nonsense you see at Drudge or Free Republic. Sensationalist, short on facts, and with a purpose other than imparting information or even considered opinion; it's a fluff piece playing to the choir for what we used to call a “cheap pop” in the wrestling business.
In behaving this way, we on the left lend credence to our critics on the right while in the same stroke emulating the very same kinds of behavior that we mercilessly criticize when engaged in by conservatives.
This behavior, this way of thinking, is wrong – it doesn't matter whether it's coming from the left or the right, it's wrong. “Conservatard” is just as ignorant and pointless a word as “lieberal.” Nobody who uses either word should be mistaken for a careful thinker or a person with an opinion worth considering; these sorts of ideologues are best dismissed with prejudice, regardless of what position or dogma they're espousing, because using these kinds of phrases, words, and rhetorical devices is a sure sign that the speaker lacks a sound basis from which to make an argument.
There are a lot of legitimate reasons to criticize someone like Sarah Palin. I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Wayne Ross. His position on this issue – aside from his callous disregard for the opinions of people he apparently now wants to represent as his state's leading law enforcement officer – is not just reasonable or well-thought, it is perfectly in line with the principles of freedom that this country was founded on.
The guy might be a jerk, a closet racist, a homophobe, a wife-beater, or a million other things…but this article does almost nothing that amounts to meaningful criticism of him. Aside from a couple of brief mentions, his execrable attitude toward the protester is set aside for the bigger issue – which really isn't an issue at all – that he 'defended' the KKK or supports their principles. It may be true that he does, but this article doesn't prove it, or even make a serious case for it.
In taking this kind of cheap shot, we have now set Ross up with an easy defense for almost any criticism. “Just another liberal smear.” I don't want to see liberal smears any more than I want to see conservative smears. I want to believe that the folks on 'my side' of things are above that kind of behavior.
This article is dishonest, and the thinking behind it smacks of the sort of Schopenhauer-via-Rove manipulative dishonesty that we just voted en masse to reject.
Please, no matter what your particular political tendency is, demand a higher standard of critical thinking for yourself, and refuse to let articles like this stand unchallenged. Like it or not, the student was wrong. Like it or not, Ross was right on this issue. He might be a jerk, but he's right on this one, and by stretching reality like this for the sake of some eyeballs, the left risks losing any credibility it may have…and the time will come when the left needs that credibility to take a stand against more meaningful threats to and abuses of our freedom.
Knee-jerk reactionism sucks on both sides of the fence. Empty rhetoric is empty, regardless of whether or not I agree with the sentiment it supports. These kinds of underhanded and dishonest tactics are offensive, denigrating to the reader, and insulting to the intelligence regardless of whether they come from left or right.
I would strongly caution the liberal blogosphere to take this article as an object lesson in how NOT to conduct yourselves in a manner that best promoted progressive ideals. Nothing will be solved by this other than driving up the author's hit count for a few days…and that constitutes an unforgivable abuse of the principle of free expression.
The extent to which the liberal establishment in this country attempts to emulate the odios techniques employed by the likes of Karl Rove is precisely the extent to which the liberal establishment can expct to be disdained by anyone with a reasonable degree of intellect. I can't see anything in that, that is positive for use as a society, or for liberal politics as an ideology.
We're supposed to be the better choice. Let's make sure we act like it.