How to respond to anti-Americanism

Alan Levine writes:

I happened to watch The McLaughlin Group Sunday morning. Eleanor Clift, in the midst of a tirade on some liberal hobby horse or other (maybe it was about the wonder and amazement that a black man in this racist country was being nominated for president), aggressively declared that the American economy was built on slavery. Now, this sort of remark might be unusually psychotic even for her, but what was more interesting was that no one present—and the group included Pat Buchanan and at least one other “conservative”—did not consider it necesary to rebuke her.

LA replies:

Someone should have said to her, “How DARE you trash our country like that? First, what you’re saying is not true. Second, you’re saying it in a spirit that is intended, not to enlighten or inform, but to make our country look ugly, to make people despise and feel bad about our country. And that is the bigotry of anti-Americanism, which is as ugly and wrong as any other bigotry. Shame on you.”

- end of initial entry -

Dana A. writes:

It’s quite obvious to me that people no longer rebuke or respond to lefties, blacks and women because they no longer take them seriously, as if they were children. There can be no rational response to a psychotically false statement like that, serious intelligent people just go “uh huh” and move on with the convo. How many times can you argue with someone about the same blatantly false, antiquated, discredited and baseless beliefs?

The lefties, women and blacks do not understand that this is what is happening—they, like you and your interlocutor, mistake the failure to rebuke for tacit acceptance of the truth of their statements. This is the dangerous dynamic that now holds between the crazy left and the serious “right.”

LA replies:

But that’s what conservatives have done all along: they haven’t taken the left seriously. They thought feminism was a “joke”; they thought blacks’ statements were “ridiculous”; they thought multiculturalism was a “fashion”; they thought political correctness was “silly.” So they didn’t bother dirtying their hands opposing these “silly” things, and as a result these silly things kept advancing and being normalized and gaining power in our society.

If we define traditionalism as serious opposition to liberalism as distinct from the unserious kind, then a basic principle of traditionalism is that in politics, what people say publicly, and what is accepted as sayable, matters.

David B. writes:

I used to watch shows like the McClaughlin Group, but I no longer do. I have seen Clift many, many times. She nearly always says things like that. She is the epitome of the Sneering, Anti-American, Liberal Media Type. Buchanan has probably been on air with Clift literally hundreds of times. He is so accustomed to her that he doesn’t even notice what she says, or may consider himself a member of the Beltway Club who should not directly attack a club member.

LA replies:

Well, of course, but that’s part of the problem, isn’t it? It becomes routinized, so Buchanan, who is part of the scene, doesn’t even notice or react to it anymore. And if he did seriously react to it, that might become a problem for him being on that show.

I remember once in the 1990s on Capital Gang, Mona Charen said sternly that something was “leftist,” and Al Hunt erupted at her, “How can you say that’s leftist, that’s ridiculous.” He literally shouted her down and silenced her. On these shows, the participants can bounce off each other, but serious criticism of leftism is not allowed. That’s the price “conservatives” pay for getting paid to be on these shows.

By the way, there was one particular incident in my life, about ten years ago, when I was shouted down and I didn’t reply. The reason was that I was in a social situation that made me inhibit myself in a way I normally wouldn’t have done. But my failure to reply, while understandable, was a huge mistake that I’ve regretted to this day. The lesson is: Unacceptable statements should never be allowed to stand, because then they are taken as true and acceptable.

Philip P. writes:

Dana A. wrote:

“It’s quite obvious to me that people no longer rebuke or respond to lefties, blacks and women because they no longer take them seriously, as if they were children. There can be no rational response to a psychotically false statement like that, serious intelligent people just go “uh huh” and move on with the convo.”

Funny, because I always felt those roles were distinctly reversed. That is, it seems to me that many conservatives (and even “moderates”) keep quiet because they feel so small and useless (childlike) in the presence of the “mature,” super-dominant liberal consensus. Especially in college, when the discussion would be dominated by liberals and leftists, I was regularly condescended to upon objecting. Once, when I dared to defend Reagan, a professor actually turned to the class and winked at them and laughed me off, as if I was some poor-mannered toddler who had wandered over to the adult table. After that, I didn’t say much.

Jon W. writes:

I think Dana’s comment depicts the center of our nearly enervated state: truth being ceded to the Goebbels effect. A bumper sticker that keeps popping up into my memory is apt: “Silence (when not borne of ignorance) is the voice of complicity.”

Your regret about being silent once in the past brought forward this recurrent and disturbing recollection.

Although my view of the Iraq “war” afterward changed, I still wince at the thought of the self inflicted blow against my manhood that occurred on the following occasion. Too late preparing to attend our regular church on a Sunday sometime after March 2003, I scanned church listings in the newspaper and my wife and I then went to Campus Congregational Church, which started services later. We settled in to join in the worship service. The female Phd (or DDiv?), Lucretia Parks, proceeded to deliver a harangue against Bush. I sat there like a dumb sheep resisting the pressing impulse to stand and call out, “Your political harangue is an outrage; teach directly from the Bible,” and then lead my wife out of there if there was no immediate change in tone or indication of congregants’ concurrence.

LA replies:

Well, I think you’re being too hard on yourself. I can’t see that shouting and interrupting the service in a church where you are a guest could be required. However, between the extremes of sitting there passively and standing up and shouting, you could have pursued the middle course of simply walking out. Conspicuously. Up the central aisle. While the pastorette was still giving her homily.

Jon W. writes:

Thanks. Yes, you are right.

Maybe shouting was not required (or appropriate), but the diatribe was so abusive and out of place I saw need for a vocal reaction. I sat there dithering between leaving, as you described, or vocalizing before doing it. Inexcusably, I did neither. However, as a consequence I became more demonstrative when later situations called for it.

LA replies:

“… but the diatribe was so abusive and out of place…”

From the way you make it sound, maybe speaking up would have been justified after all.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 10, 2008 09:50 AM | Send