Bush’s supremely prejudicial position that his opponents’ position consists of nothing but prejudice
From Laura Ingraham’s site:
LIE OF THE DAYWhen Snow says that immigration is an emotional issue, he means that the opponents of the immigration bill have what the president has condescendingly described as “strong feelings” about it, and that these feelings consist of irrational fears and prejudices. The Bush team thus follows what we might call the New York Times Editorial Page View of Reality. According to the NYTEPVOR, there is the Correct Position, endorsed by us, the Decent People, and there is Opposition to the Correct Position, spawned in the Outer Realm of Darkness and consisting of Superstition, Fear, Resentment, Bigotry, and Cynicism. Outside our view of the issue, no rational, fair-minded, or good-faith view exists. Therefore no debate is needed, no response to the opposition’s arguments is called for. The only correct response to our opponents is to denounce them for their Bigotry, Fear-mongering, and Cynicism and to exclude them from the Community of Decent People.
In fact, the Bush White House, the prime devil in the New York Times Editorial Page View of Reality for the last seven years, has been practicing its own version of New York Times-style political correctness during those years. A prime example has been President Bush’s and Condoleezza Rice’s repeated statement that to doubt the viability of Muslim democracy was to be “condescending” and “racist” toward Muslims. This meant that there was to be no debate on one of the most radical and questionable policies ever pursued by the United States of America. Bush’s mainstream conservative supporters never criticized the White House for this blatant attempt to demonize opposition and silence debate, because the mainstream conservatives shared the president’s belief in Muslim democratization and were not the targets of his attack. Nor were the president’s liberal enemies the targets of his attack, since the liberals also did not oppose Muslim democratization per se. They opposed the president’s Islam policy because, in their fevered leftist imaginations, they saw it, not as the hyper-liberal policy it really was, but as a form of greedy fascist racist corporate imperialism. No, the actual targets of the president’s attack were traditional conservatives who disbelieved that Muslims could be made into democrats and who thought the most likely effect of spreading democracy and freedom in the Muslim world would be to liberate more jihadism.
In short, the president of the United States was prohibiting any serious intellectual questioning of his policy from the right, and his mainstream conservative supporters did not mind that he was doing this. But now that the president, when it comes to advancing his immigration bill, is targeting his own mainstream conservative supporters as bigots and seeking to expel them from the Community of Decent People, suddenly they are noticing it and reacting against it. They had to feel it before they could see it.
Ironically, seven years ago I defended candidate George W. Bush (whom I did not support and did not vote for) when he was caught by the ever-spreading net of political correctness. On March 6, 2000, which by happy coincidence was the day before Super Tuesday when McCain’s candidacy was crushed, NewsMax published my article, “McCain: A Dangerous Man Reflecting the Triumph of Clintonism,” in which I wrote:
While political correctness protects certain groups from scrutiny, it portrays other groups as bigots. Throughout his presidency, Clinton has repeatedly spoken against the forces of “hate,” the voices of “division” and the politics of “personal destruction.” By implicitly describing Republicans as evil (and never being called to account for this, even by Republicans), Clinton has freely practiced, in the name of unity and compassion, the dark and polarizing politics he claims to see in his Republican opponents.That was in 2000. And now, irony of ironies, it is Bush who is casting establishment Republicans as vile extremists beyond the pale of respectable society.
James N. writes:
Your description of the NY Times editorial page’s moral framework was excellent. Sometimes it feels like we are approaching a turning point. And yet the Virginians who stepped out of the woods at Gettysburg to assault Cemetery Ridge probably felt that way, too.LA replies:
I certainly feel that we need to re-legitimize healthy fellow feeling, the feeling of peoplehood. You say I shrink from the charge of racism. If you mean that I’m afraid of saying things that will get me called racist, I disagree. If you mean that I do not embrace racism, then you are right. This is a standing disagreement I have with many paleos. Paleos, in reaction to PC anti-racism, have embrace racism, an as a result they’ve lost the ability to make any distinction between racial statements/acts that are moral and those that are not.M. Mason writes:
Whenever I hear a “conservative” political analyst emphatically state that the subject of immigration is “not about emotions, but enforcing the law,” I know I’m listening to someone who is, in the single most important respect, still a liberal on this issue. Of course the issue of enforcing the already existing law is important, but even that isn’t the crux of the matter here.LA replies:
I agree overall with your general point, but I disagree with your criticism of Ingraham’s point. She was simply putting down Tony Snow’s suggestion that our side is driven by “emotion” rather than the truth which is that our side demanding something objective—enforcement of the law. Her point was fine.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 02, 2007 12:38 AM | Send