My obsession is your obsession

Reader Bruce B. gets the significance of my argument with Robert Spencer. In an e-mail with the subject line, “Why you are different from post-60s conservatives,” he writes:

Guess I’m being “obsessive” but I kept thinking about this comment from Spencer in the initial exchange:

“For pete’s sake. All right. I’ll spell it out: I am not for Jackson/Farrakhanian race baiting. I am not for special treatment to be given to any group over another.”

This is so obnoxiously typical of post-60’s conservatives. They only address the “undiscussables” reluctantly and with resentful sounding language. Resentful, that is, that they are forced to address the undiscussables. But even then they only address the “Jackson / Sharpton / Farrakhanian race baiting,” thus implicitly reducing complex issues of national and maybe even civilizational importance to a few obnoxious minority leaders. I see this exact pattern time and time again with mainstream conservatives. Never, never would they dare address patterns of minority thinking or why Jackson et. al are the mainstream minority leadership (not marginalized “extremists” like Traditionalists) and, thus, representative of minority thinking. You are right. Modern conservatism is an utter failure and darn near useless. You are right. Race is the controlling issue because it completely destroys our ability to talk and even think rationally about critical issues.

I think you saw liberal language in Spencer’s writings and instinctively pounced. Upon reflection about the ensuing exchange, I think your instincts were correct. I don’t know how you can do what you do and not tick people off. “Ecumenical” writing with regard to people like Spencer would require you to compromise or at least suppress the truth.

Keep up the great work!

L.A. replies:

Thank you for the many excellent observations. I especially like your insight into the real meaning of Spencer’s “for pete’s sake” quote. You made my day.

- end of initial entry -

Sage McLaughlin writes:

Your seemingly interminable dispute with Robert Spencer has something of the character of my favorite exchange in A Man for All Seasons. Thomas More has denied William Roper’s request for Meg’s hand in marriage, on the grounds that he persists in being “a heretic.”

“Now that’s a word I don’t like!” Roper replies, agitatedly.

“Not a likable word? It’s not a likable thing.”

LA replies:

Your e-mail could be understood in two different ways.

(1) You’re saying it’s a dispute over nothing significant. In which case I disagree. I think Bruce’s comment today brought out very well why the dispute matters.

(2) You’re saying that Spencer thinks it’s a dispute over nothing significant, over a mere “word,” whereas, in fact, it’s a dispute over a real thing

It was your phrase, “seemingly interminable dispute,” that initially made me think that your meaning was interpretation number one. But when I read your e-mail again, I leaned more toward interpretation number two.

Mr. McLaughlin replies:

Sorry to have been opaque. I meant to say that Spencer’s reaction to being called a “liberal” was very like that of the lawyer’s son, Will Roper. He was angry at the connotation, without pausing to consider whether the shoe really fit. Both react to what they perceive as a besmirchment of their character—a “smear”—as though an accurate description of their views by a critic is mere name-calling.

So interpretation #2 was the right one. The debate is about something very significant, even if Spencer persists in believing it’s all about labels.

Your dispute with him has taken on a wearisome quality, but only because he refuses to deal with your criticism head-on. “Stop calling me that” is not that same thing as “I am not X because…”

LA writes:

Thanks for the clarification.

This reminds me of a paper I wrote in college on Shakespeare’s “Much Ado about Nothing.” I entitled the paper, “Much Ado about Something.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 12, 2006 09:17 AM | Send