Michael Moynihan – Jewcy

“Socialist” Is Not A Racist Smear

Michael Moynihan — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:09:41 +0000

Is there anything more tedious—or perhaps pernicious—than the confident, outraged, and half-educated political pundit? Thank goodness for the Drudge Report, without whom this latest manifestation of racial cryptography would have likely passed unnoticed. One Lewis Diuguid (pronounced ‘Do-good,’ I suspect), editorial page columnist for the Kansas City Star, is horrified to note that Sen. John McCain has called his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, a "socialist." Now let me, as a card-carrying member of the libertarian establishment, say from the outset that while the prospect of an Obama presidency and large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate stimulates my acid reflux, I am optimistic that our presumptive leader will govern more in the style of L.B.J. than Eugene Debs. Thank heaven for small mercies. So yes, I expect the next four years to be pretty grim, but those who foretell massive grain collectivization, the requisition of SUVs, a liquidation campaign against the kulaks, would be advised to take a deep breath. But buried in these charges of socialism, Mr. Diuguid, the Star’s in-house racial cryptographer, finds clear racist intent. He explains that “J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.” Indeed, “freedom fighters” like “W.E.B. Du Bois, who in 1909 helped found the NAACP which is still the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization [and] Paul Robeson, a famous singer, actor and political activist who in the 1930s became involved in national and international movements for better labor relations, peace and racial justice…” This is a sort of reverse McCarthyism; the presumption that because an activist was denounced as a ‘socialist’ he was obviously no such thing. But here Mr. Diuguid is, whether out of luck or ignorance, partially correct. Du Bois and Robeson were most certainly not socialists—they were Stalinists. Du Bois, who renounced his American citizenship and formally joined the American Communist Party in 1961, five years after Khrushchev’s secret speech, two years after being awarded the Lenin Peace Prize, made no secret of his “socialism.” Indeed, here is a representative selection from his bootlicking obituary for Josef Stalin:

“Joseph Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature. He was simple, calm and courageous. He seldom lost his poise; pondered his problems slowly, made his decisions clearly and firmly; never yielded to ostentation nor coyly refrained from holding his rightful place with dignity…He was attacked and slandered as few men of power have been; yet he seldom lost his courtesy and balance…His judgment of men was profound…Such was the man who lies dead, still the butt of noisy jackals and of the ill-bred men of some parts of the distempered West. In life he studied under continuous and studied insult; he was forced to make bitter decisions on his lone responsibility. His reward comes as the common man stands in solemn acclaim.”

A one-off mistake, perhaps? Three years later, in June 1956, tens of thousands of Poles took to the streets of Poznan demanding democratic reform. As was customary in occupied Eastern Europe, the occupation army was dispatched to quell the demonstration, leaving 60 protestors dead (some estimates put the number in the hundreds). In a letter to a friend, Du Bois admitted that "Not even the upheaval in Poland disturbs me," for the demonstrators were likely "landlords" and members of the “military clan” in the pay of the United States. Or how about this: Confronted with Khrushchev’s secret speech, in which the Soviet leader broadly revealed the institutional terror of his predecessor, Du Bois protested that the revelations were “irresponsible and muddled.” In a letter to a supporter, he explained that while perhaps "probably too cruel" at times, he nevertheless "regard[ed] Stalin as one of the great men of the twentieth century." And Stalin’s brutal purges of 1936-38, during which over a million class enemies were murder, he argued, were entirely justified: From the testimony I read at the time, I believe that justice was done to these men on the whole. In the critical struggle then going on, some innocent men might have suffered, but as to the general fairness of these trials, even reliable American observers like Raymond Robbins (sic) testified. These were, Mr. Diuguid might be interested to learn, views shared by Paul Robeson, the great campaigner for “justice,” and 1952 winner of the Stalin Peace Prize. It should suffice here to briefly excerpt Robeson’s eulogy for Stalin:

“Forever [Stalin’s] name will be honored and beloved in all lands! In all spheres of modern life the influence of Stalin reaches wide and deep. From his last simply written but vastly discerning and comprehensive document, back through the years, his contributions to the science of our world society remain invaluable.”

After beseeching his fellow African-Americans not to fight against the Soviet Union, whom he argued viewed race relations through a progressive lens, boxer Sugar Ray Robinson told a reporter that if he ever crossed paths with Robeson he would “punch him in the mouth.” But there is a surface stupidity in Diuguid’s piece too; the very modern usage of the phrase “racial code.” Perhaps his historical illiteracy is forgivable (I was taught the same thing about Du Bois and Robeson, and my alma mater named its library after him), but does he truly believe that, in the bad old days of J. Edgar Hoover, those wished to speak ill of African Americans were forced to revert to some sort of secret language?

The post “Socialist” Is Not A Racist Smear appeared first on Jewcy.

Liberal Democracies Must Protect (Hateful or Dumb or Disagreeable) Free Expression

Michael Moynihan — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 02:00:54 +0000

There are a number of points on which Ali Eteraz and I agree. Despite my general hostility to organized religion, I too have little patience for Robert Spencer-type arguments that Islam is possessed with a preternatural desire to force unbelievers into a state of "dhimmitude," nor am I terribly concerned that the minarets of "Eurabia" will soon encircle the Islamisized capitals of Western Europe. As I noted in my Reason column, I have little interest — and little academic qualification — in such conversations, and will leave the discussions of Koranic interpretation to theologians and historians. But thankfully, for the sake of Jewcy's readers, there is much on which we disagree. But let me start be reiterating that I too was unimpressed by Wilders film, and his views of Islam still strike me as reductive and, to put it mildly, incomplete.

So let’s get right to a few important points of disagreement: I suspect that Ali understood that I would strenuously object to his characterization of Wilders as a "threat to liberal society" — a threat to whom? How grave a threat? — and that there exists, as he writes, some “threat of discussion.” And while I can, I suppose, sympathize with his desire to "rid liberal society of people like Wilders," it is worth pointing out that here Ali is entering pie-in-the-sky, Five Year Plan territory. Besides, any attempts to purge people with unpopular opinions from polite society risks having the very opposite effect.

Ali also advises that, to achieve harmony amongst Muslims and non-Muslims, it is necessary “ignore Michael's exhortation about looking out for Wilders rights, and spend our time either ignoring or mocking him.” This is a perfectly baffling sentence. Ali will find that my editorial in support of Wilders' right to hate Islam is also an exhortation to debate him (Mocking, devoid of serious debating or debunking, will likely be an ineffective weapon). But if Ali truly believes that Wilders shouldn't be prosecuted for thought crimes — as was suggested by both implicitly and explicitly by Dutch Muslim groups and members of the Balkanende government — then he must, on some level, be concerned with the right to free speech.

Instead, you advocate threatening Wilders — “The only way we can make this showing is if Wilders is aware that he is perpetually ‘this close’ to losing his right to offend — which sounds as if your conception of free speech comes with a few conditions. So, Ali, what do you propose to do? On the one hand, you defensively write that no law should be created or employed that would abridge Wilders' right to free speech, though you want to threaten to silence him in order to demonstrate that, in a liberal society, there are times when the government must be illiberal. So how do you suggest we force reasoned discourse if not by the force of law? And who will determine what is offensive?

I agree with Ali that there has been in a shift in Dutch perception of Islam, but his analysis is oversimplified, focusing largely on what he sees as a perception that “immigrants from Muslim countries are viewed as being inherently incapable of becoming good citizens in the West.” In the argument about Islamic extremism, foreign policy “blowback,” and America’s standing in the Muslim world, it has been a frequent refrain that we must look inward, and ask “why they hate us.” Ali’s position is an admirable one; it is worth repeating that other frequent refrain here: radical Islamists are in the minority.

But that said, we must see if there is indeed an integration problem in the Netherlands, we must honestly assess whether there indeed exists a perception that assimilation of the country’s Muslim immigrants is hopeless. In other words, let us also ask "why do they hate them?" We therefore cannot discuss the issue of Dutch "intolerance" while ignoring the brutal murder of Theo van Gogh, the armed cells of radicals broken up by Dutch police, Rotterdam’s imam declaring that "Homosexuality does not only affect the people who have this disease, but it can also spread." That "40 percent of the Moroccan youth in the Netherlands reject western values and democracy," according to a study by the University of Amsterdam’s Center for Radicalism and Extremism Studies, cannot be blithely dismissed as the byproduct of Islamophobia. Wilders may be a boor, but that shouldn’t obscure the real problems of radical Islamism and religious Balkanization in Holland.

Before I run too long, allow me to object to the logical fallacy of Ali's comparison of
Wilder's anti-Islam film and to the public rejection of racism or sexism. I am of course not the first to make this distinction, but I think it is worth repeating that the adoption of a religion, even if bequeathed to you by your parents or community, is still a choice. It is a set of superstitious beliefs and moral precepts. Theological issues are something with which we can vigorously disagree and debate. Gender and race are immutable; one cannot choose these things. It would be quite different, then, if Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins were to write book-length attacks on blacks or women rather than religion and the religious.

And one final point: Ali also says that those of us who defend democracy have allies, and those allies are the brave Iranian students who defy the vile regime under whose boot heel they live and not Mr. Wilders (who is brave in his own right). Well now. Can one not name both as worthy of protection? Can we venerate one and merely argue that the other should be allowed to insult a religion because he believes it to be irredeemably violent? Democracy, after all, means defending the rights of those who possess opinions both decent and indecent. There are real consequences if we were to abandon either.

You want to tell Iranian students that “as you fight your supremacists [the Mullahs], we fight ours [Wilders].” While I am loathe to accuse Ali of employing moral equivalence, I must strongly object to his suggestion that those who hang gay men from cranes in Tehran are morally as reprehensible, are an equal threat to civilization, as a marginal politician who denies that moderate Islam exists. There is, you must admit, a difference.

The post Liberal Democracies Must Protect (Hateful or Dumb or Disagreeable) Free Expression appeared first on Jewcy.