In a recent column, conservative writer Jonah Goldberg discussed how NBC’s coverage of the Sochi Olympics completely ignored the horrors of the Soviet Union in its retrospectives and color commentary. Words and phrases included “history’s pivotal experiments,” “empire,” “colossal footprint,” “revolution,” “passion,” without mention of tens of millions dead, countless millions enslaved, tortured and sent to brutal work camps, systemic squalor, corruption, human degradation, misery, or utter disregard for individual rights. Goldberg goes on to state “In America, we constantly, almost obsessively, wrestle with the “legacy of slavery.” That speaks well of us.” He’s right, it does, but sometimes it’s “wrestled with” with ulterior motives and, perversely, in opposition to liberty.
Consider a quote from comic and liberal Janeane Garofalo:
Our country is founded on a sham: our forefathers were slave-owning rich white guys who wanted it their way. So when I see the American flag, I go, ‘Oh my God, you`re insulting me.’
Therein lies one of the enduring attacks perpetrated by the Left of our entire system of government. The greatest political document ever written, the Constitution, is dismissed because it was written in part by slaveowners, without any heed or consideration given to the value or quality of the content itself. It’s a cheap and easy stunt, effective because slavery and race relations are such “tread lightly” topics that whoever is on the other side tends to go defensive and respond very carefully. It’s also a logical fallacy – a “guilt by association” ploy and a binary “if it’s not perfect it’s worthless and wrong” presumption.
Slavery was a horrible institution and is a permanent stain on the nation’s history, and should always be condemned and never forgotten. But, in terms of sheer numbers, slavery in the USA pales in comparison to the (much more recent) history of the Soviet Union. Approximately 600,000 slaves taken from Africa were brought to the Colonies/United States (about 5% of the total slave trade in the world in that era) and as of 1850, the total slave population of the United States was a little over 3 million people. By comparison, the Soviet Union put at least 10 million people into labor camps and killed 20 million under Stalin’s rule (by many accounts, a very conservative estimate, and that doesn’t even count the 25 million dead during WWII). Look, as well, at Red China, where Mao’s Great Leap Forward killed 50 million people. Tack on the civilian deaths from World War II, the 2 million killed by the Khmer Rouge, and a laundry list of other mass killings and deaths from the 20th century’s numerous attempts at socialism/communism/totalitarianism/statism. These are deaths (a large percentage deliberate, the balance the expected result of horrific acts of enslavement, forced labor, deliberately induced famine and the like) rather than “mere” slavery or indentured servitude. Many tens of millions dead, from deliberate action, without regret, and with future generations ignoring them rather than screaming loudly about the systems that led to them.
Many of the liberals of our nation and our time, who are SO quick to condemn our entire system of limited government with the sledgehammer that is the nation’s history with slavery routinely excuse these tens of millions of deaths under socialism and communism as simply flawed implementation of the sound and noble political idea that is statism. Consider, though, that this nation resolved its slavery problem actively and affirmatively, while the Soviet Union and Red China only “resolved” the systems that killed so many because those systems failed.
Why? Why aggressively and continually bash the system that created so much liberty and prosperity for its citizens because it got one thing terribly wrong while simultaneously ignoring or downplaying the massively greater harm done by a system that’s failed time and again even, comparatively, in its “successes?” Apart from the blind insistence that, because they’re smart, they can’t possibly be so wrong, apart from the foolish and indefensible belief that they can get it right “this time,” apart from the “it can never happen here” delusion (totalitarianism arises with the consent of the people, not in spite of them), bashing America is safe and easy. There’s no need to worry about having to resolve uncomfortable dissonance, or having to face one’s own hypocrisy, and there’s little fear of retribution. And, it’s a quick and convenient reactionary tool for knocking down political opponents.
One of the enduring debates of our time and our nation is over the size, scope and role of government. Those on the Left generally take an expansive view, while those on the Right (claim to) advocate for limited government. The latter will invariably rely on the Constitution itself and the plain language therein to support their position, and the former will respond to this line of reasoning either with so-broad-as-to-render-meaningless interpretations of the clauses and strictures therein or with the “it’s an obsolete document written by hypocritical slaveowners.” Arguing interpretation invites challenge, and it’s usually a losing proposition for the statist. However, the slavery trump card lets the statist wrap himself in a cocoon of righteousness, quickly and easily, and know that the other side must tread on dangerous ground in order to argue back.
Liberals don’t limit their use of “easy” to this one area. Consider the debate on religion in this country. Christianity is a favorite bugbear of the Left, and among the favored “talking points” are pedophile priests, biblical literalism and young-earth beliefs, anti-Darwinism, opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage, and “traditional” family structures that subjugate women. Yet we don’t hear those folks decrying Islam in the same fashion, despite Islam’s far poorer track record when it comes to gays, women, violence and liberty in general. We will hear that Islam is a religion of peace that a handful on the margins have misinterpreted and corrupted to bad ends, with no mention of its anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-liberty elements, while also hearing that Christianity as a whole is irredeemable because some have done bad things under its banner and because some practice a version of it that is incompatible with science and reason. Why? Apart from the fact that Christianity tends to be more commonly practiced by and more important to those on the Right (although there are oodles of Christian Democrats, as well as oodles of creationists who vote “blue”), it’s a safe and easy target. The Catholic Church’s handling of pedophiles isn’t admirable (to say the least), and it’s not an easy walk to argue against those who conflate all of Catholicism with that horrific act. Moreso, Christians don’t usually fight back the way Muslims have. There’s no equivalent of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. There’s little concern that speaking out against Christianity is going to get you or your family attacked. Even those asses in the Westboro Baptist Church respect legal boundaries.
If you walked into a comedy club in New York City from 2001 onward, you were virtually guaranteed to hear a whole lot of jokes at the expense of George W. Bush. Jokes that were oftentimes quite insulting and personal routinely got huge laughs. It’s not hard to understand why. In a liberal city, GWB was and is a safe target, and even those who liked and supported him could get and appreciate those jokes. Now, think back on Obama’s first term. Did you hear jokes made about him in comedy clubs or on television? Did you ever tell a joke about Obama to a friend, but first look around to see if someone might overhear? It wasn’t safe to joke about Obama. The Center for Media and Public Affairs has tallies of jokes made on late-night TV about Republican vs Democratic presidential candidates, and in every election going back at least to 1992, the Democrat always trailed the Republican by a healthy margin as the target. “Safe,” again. Only now, with Obama’s approval ratings in the toilet and increasing discontent with his presidency and with ObamaCare, has he become a safe and easy target.
Consider a random television news reader on a random local television station. Consider a slip of the tongue, an errant word, a mush-mouth moment, that comes across bigoted or racist. No ill intent, not a racist bone in the news reader’s body, just a twisted tongue. You’ve all seen the stories, and you’ve all seen the aftermaths. Advocacy groups get outraged, the news reader apologizes profusely, the station issues statements, the advocacy groups remain outraged, the news reader gets fired, the station apologizes again, the advocacy group grumbles a begrudging acceptance but leaves warnings in place. The news reader’s an easy target. He certainly cannot defend himself, and the station has little to gain (other than in holding onto integrity it doesn’t have) in standing with him and telling the advocacy group not to overreact. The reader’s job is lost, his career is trashed, his family’s finances are at risk and he carries an unjust “racist” stigma for the rest of his life, just so some too-much-free-time loudmouths can pat themselves on the back. Given the horrors around the world that stem from real racism, one would wonder how these advocacy groups have the time and energy to devote to crushing someone who is neither in a position to fight back nor guilty of anything other than an accidental and unintentional utterance. To repeat – safe and easy.
Attacking easy targets is the hallmark of a bully, amusing given the inordinate attention being directed by the chattering classes at bullying nowadays. It’s also a sign of weakness, whether realized or subconscious. And, again amusing given how much the term is a mantra for the left, it’s “unfair.” Unfair as in unjust, unmerited, and low-down. They say that all’s fair in love and war. Perhaps that should be expanded to include liberal politics. There’s really no other way to excuse going after easy marks when there are so many more deserving targets.
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