A column by Michelle Malkin reminded me of an old observation regarding the special hatred people of the Left hold for those who are expected to be liberals but are not. In her column, Ms. Malkin discussed several instances of people in the political sphere, people of color, who are ridiculed, reviled, and publicly insulted for having white spouses. Her primary example, a black actress who married a white Fox News reporter, also has the sub-text of association with that reviled Murdoch network and the associated faces of non-liberalism. Other examples include Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife is white, and herself, a Filipina married to a white man. Again, a key subtext therein is the association with conservative politics and non-liberal views, and that is where the real story lies.
It’s commonly understood that, in the eyes of many, if you belong to a particular demographic, you’re expected and presumed to cleave to a particular set of political beliefs. It’s no secret that if you are black, you are expected to hold strongly to mainstream Democratic politics, vote for Democrats at all times, support liberal orthodoxy, and denounce Republicans at every turn. It’s also no secret that if you’re a woman, you again should lean Democrat, be pro-choice, show that you care about others by supporting statism, and so forth. Yet certainly there are going to be differences in opinions and viewpoints among those populations – it would be delusional to think otherwise – so why such special and vitriolic hatred from the Left for Clarence Thomas, Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, Herman Cain, Stacey Dash, Crystal Wright, and at times, Bill Cosby and Condoleeza Rice?
The answer lies in the centuries-long tradition of holding in deepest contempt those who preach heresy or choose apostasy. Those of the fold who speak in contradiction to established doctrine or who question or dispute known truths are dangerous, because their dissent stands a greater chance of spreading in the tribe. It’s easy to dismiss the beliefs of outsiders, of those who are “other,” “not of the tribe,” as simple ignorance – pagans aren’t as reviled as those who have been shown “the light” yet chose to break with it. We tend to hold ourselves above those we deem ignorant or too stupid to appreciate and accept the truths we’ve shown them – else why would we continue to associate ourselves with “our” tribe?
Another concern likely plays a role – that these heretics or apostates demonstrate a break in solidarity to those who view from outside. If the movement can’t keep its own in line, if there are some who the movement claims to champion yet don’t support the movement, that weakens the movement’s power and strength.
The combination threat that heretics and apostates represent, an example for some within the group to eschew orthodoxy, and a demonstration that not all of the group support the orthodoxy, weakens both the group’s internal leadership and its ability to bend others to its will. If the outside world sees evidence that it won’t pay as high a price for incurring the group’s wrath, because some in the group don’t reflexively do as they’re told, then the group’s influence diminishes.
There is also a sense of resentment that can occur, a “how dare you not fall in line after all I’ve done for your people?” paternalism. In the case of race relations, the Democrats laid claim to the mantle of “champion for the black community” back in the 60s (despite, of course, the strong resistance of southern Democrats to the civil rights movement and opposition to the Civil Rights Act). So, forever after it seems, blacks are supposed to vote (D), no matter whether they disagree with aspects of the party’s platform. A similar argument is applied to women and to many other demographic groups. But, what is a member of one of the demographic groups that the Left claims ownership of to do if he or she is, for example, opposed to abortion, or opposed to government paying for abortion, or isn’t in favor of expanding the welfare state? Suck it up, vote solidarity instead of individuality, and not betray the tribe?
Another version of the paternalistic resentment is tribal identity and the presumption of obligation to those who have suffered for the tribe’s benefit. A segment of the gay community takes umbrage with gays who have chosen not to “come out,” not to publicize their sexual orientation, because by staying hidden they don’t contribute to the effort towards acceptance and instead let others carry the weight. Women who don’t support the “party of women” dishonor the memory of those who marched and suffered and stood up for women’s rights in decades past.
Of course, this sort of behavior can be found on the non-Left as well, but there’s a difference if you draw a divide between right-wing statists and those who embrace individuality over the collective. This brings us to the root of the issue – the subordination of the individual to the group that is a hallmark of statist and hierarchical thinking. In showing special anger for those who don’t behave as one thinks is best for their Ôtribe,’ one presumes that the tribe’s well-being is more important than an individual’s liberty and right to pursue his own path, his own happiness and find his own belief set. Amusingly, if one’s liberty brings one to the “correct” choices, declarations and celebrations of that liberty will abound. If you choose to follow the prescribed, “noble” path, your freedom of choice is heralded (especially if there’s publicity to be had). That’s why liberal Bill De Blasio’s marrying a black lesbian brings rapture to the hearts of liberals everywhere. Imagine, though, if De Blasio wasn’t orthodox liberal – if he held strong views about limited government, opposed disparate taxation of the rich, believed in school choice, wanted to rein in public unions, and so forth. None of these views have any race component to them, but were I a betting man I’d wager there would be sturm und drang from the usual sources about how his mixed marriage was a stunt or how his wife was betraying her “people.” De Blasio would be in the list of names at the top of this essay, rather than an “exception proves the rule” footnote.
In decades past, those who stood up for the rights of oppressed minorities were heroes, who chose to suffer and put themselves, their futures and their families at risk in the name of justice. Today, for heroism and leadership in those communities, we should look to the people who stand against the demands of conformity, who declare that they are individuals rather than faceless components of a monolithic mass, who embrace that oh-so-American “pursuit of happiness” despite castigation from their “tribe” and from those who have appointed themselves guardians and hall-monitors of those tribes. The risk they face isn’t as direct or severe as that their predecessors may have faced, but it isn’t trivial either. Heresy and apostasy, in one’s community or in the political sphere, comes with special risks, and lovers of liberty should pay special attention to and support those who take those risks.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters