PAtownhall.com
Pennsylvania's Marketplace of Ideas
Pennsylvania's Marketplace of Ideas
PAtownhall.com
Pennsylvania's Marketplace of Ideas
Pennsylvania's Marketplace of Ideas
by Nathan Shrader
Forget about baseball, Americans have found their new favorite pastime: becoming offended at the drop of a hat and demanding futile, insincere apologies. Why have Americans forsaken the tradition of free thinking, rejected reason, and turned the basic acts of criticizing or lampooning public officials, individuals, or groups within our society into the acts of shame, humiliation, and disgrace?
On the morning of July 14, Yahoo News readers were treated to a headline about the Obama campaign's outrage over the New Yorker's satirical cover cartoon which included a turban-laden Barack Obama "fist-bumping" his machine-gun toting wife in front of a portrait of Osama bin Laden. An American flag burns in the fire place below the bin Laden picture while the couple stands in the Oval Office.
The sufficiently enlightened among us are quick to realize that the New Yorker, a magazine which occasionally dabbles in the art of satire, is simply doing what good periodicals are supposed to do: make us think by unconventionally pointing out the various bogus attacks against the Obamas. The cartoon in question is previewing this issue's cover story, "The Politics of Fear," a serious look at the absurd nature of those assailing Obama with claims that he and his wife detest America, are clandestinely Muslims, or harbor animosity towards whites.
America's thought police, whom I dissected in great detail on April 12, 2007 following their sacking of Don Imus, again failed to act rationally, which would have required reading the article and placing the image in context prior to throwing a tantrum worthy of a four year old with a sweet tooth whose mother will not permit him a Hershey's bar for breakfast.
It is, of course, time for outrage. To quote Claude Rains' Captain Renault character in Casablanca: "Major Strasser has been shot ...Round up the usual suspects!" And we shall.
"Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism — well, here's your image," cries the neo-Marxist Huffington Post.
"Tasteless and offensive," shouts the Obama camp.
"We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it's tasteless and offensive," says the always-pandering McCain campaign. Recall this is the candidate whose name sits atop the law imposing a historically harsh gag rule on political speech.
"The New Yorker magazine officially hits the gutter with its July 21st cover," bemoans the Detroit Free Press.
"...I suspect that other Obama supporters like me are also thinking about not subscribing to or buying a magazine that traffics in such trash," howls one anonymous Obama supporter to ABC News.
"The New Yorker's Editor Tries to Explain Racist Cover," screeches the headline on the internet lair of Democratic Underground, a collection of leftists who likely think that Dennis Kucinich is overly moderate. Leave it to these folks to invent a fictional race story to help beat their ideological and partisan war drums.
Rampant examples of such anti-intellectual "outrage" are piling up as of late. Earlier this year Geraldine Ferraro questioned whether Obama's race had something do with his electoral success, which is a perfectly plausible question that political scientists at universities are likely studying as we speak. The reaction? A demand that Ferraro, a decorated veteran of Democrat Party service, not only apologize but that the Clinton campaign discharge her as a surrogate, which they did.
A few weeks back retired General Wesley Clark commented about John McCain's politicization of his time as Prisoner of War for political gain. On July 1 Clark noted that "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." True as this may be, Clark was attacked repeatedly by an angry McCain campaign, and as is the trend, an apology was demanded and the Obama campaign was asked to cut the highly respected Clark from his list of surrogates.
In a scene fit for the old Bloopers and Practical Jokes program, Jesse Jackson was recently caught with a live microphone in a Fox studio claiming that Obama, by talking about good parenting and the failure of black males to live up to their fatherly obligations, was "talking down to black people." Soon the demands for recantation were heard throughout the land. Jackson backed down and sure enough, surrendered his free thinking to the P.C. thugs which have helped ransack our national discourse.
Don't forget former U.S. Senator Phil Gramm being taken to the political woodshed last week for saying that America is filled to the brim with whiners, another statement in which whether or not you agree is irrelevant. McCain's campaign was forced to again apologize and usher Gramm out of the arena.
All of this is reminiscent—on a much smaller scale, of course— of the incident which occurred in early 2006 when Islamists went on a rampage of holy horror following a Danish newspaper's decision to publish "controversial" cartoons of Mohammed. The Islamist extremists in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East rampaged throughout the land wreaking havoc over an obvious inability to use reason and logic to think through problems. Bomb threats were made, effigies were burned, and free thought was again put to the test.
These less violent examples within out own nation point to a growing and almost insatiable urge for Americans to bow down to this process of becoming offended, demanding apologies, and then seeking punishment for the original actor who caused the state of offendedness in the first place.
It is one thing to argue the merits of any of these comments, but it is nothing short of cowardly, irrational anti-intellectualism that favors sacking the messenger and censoring his thoughts without having a reasoned debate over the content of the message.
Rather than continuing this foolish cycle, isn't it simply time that we all decided to respect the right of Phil Gramm to call us a nation of whiners—which must be somewhat true given the bellyaching over his comments? Can't we respect Wes Clark for calling into question the crazy notion that simply fighting in a war alone qualifies one to be Commander-in-Chief? Can't we also give Jesse Jackson the respect of having his own opinion, whether the microphone was supposed to catch it or not?
It is another irony that those who tend to carp the loudest and most often about how we must have "tolerance" for things we don't like and who jam the doctrine of diversity—or as Alan Bloom would have said, "openness"—down the throats of every citizen are the most aggressive in attacking speech and expression they personally do not like.
These examples, especially this week's involving the Obama cartoon should help prove the larger point that reacting with offense and outrage to the simple expressions and opinions of others makes our nation less wise, dampens the discourse of the country, and detracts from the serious debate of the day.
As Jefferson stated in 1801, "The right of our fellow citizens to represent to the public functionaries their opinion on proceedings interesting to them is unquestionably a constitutional right, often useful, sometimes necessary, and will always be respectfully acknowledged by me." These are words remain true today.
The constant state of offendedness that so many find themselves in is more closely related to a treacherous level of anti-intellectualism which suggests we should manage our thoughts and self-censor our speech for fear of outraging or offending others. Unfortunately for these unenlightened enemies of discourse, the history of our nation and our founding principles will never be on their side.
Nathan Shrader holds a Masters of Science in Political Science from Suffolk University and writes bi-weekly for PoliticalGrind.com.
