The Hateful Left

News you want to discuss. Threads should start with a reference or fact. Straight opinion is better housed in "The Lounge" below.
Frank the Crank
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:00 pm

The Hateful Left

Postby Frank the Crank » Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:04 am

Excellent piece fro WSJ by Shelby Steele.

Why the Left Is Consumed With Hate
SHELBY STEELE SEPTEMBER 23, 2018

Even before President Trump’s election, hatred had begun to emerge on the American left—counterintuitively, as an assertion of guilelessness and moral superiority. At the Women’s March in Washington the weekend after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, the pop star Madonna said, “I have thought an awful lot of blowing up the White House.” Here hatred was a vanity, a braggadocio meant to signal her innocence of the sort of evil that, in her mind, the White House represented. (She later said the comment was “taken wildly out of context.”)

For many on the left a hateful anti-Americanism has become a self-congratulatory lifestyle. “America was never that great,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently said. For radical groups like Black Lives Matter, hatred of America is a theme of identity, a display of racial pride.

For other leftists, hate is a license. Conservative speakers can be shouted down, even assaulted, on university campuses. Republican officials can be harassed in restaurants, in the street, in front of their homes. Certain leaders of the left—Rep. Maxine Waters comes to mind—are self-appointed practitioners of hate, urging their followers to think of hatred as power itself.

How did the American left—conceived to bring more compassion and justice to the world—become so given to hate? It began in the 1960s, when America finally accepted that slavery and segregation were profound moral failings. That acceptance changed America forever. It imposed a new moral imperative: America would have to show itself redeemed of these immoralities in order to stand as a legitimate democracy.

The genius of the left in the ’60s was simply to perceive the new moral imperative, and then to identify itself with it. Thus the labor of redeeming the nation from its immoral past would fall on the left. This is how the left put itself in charge of America’s moral legitimacy. The left, not the right—not conservatism—would set the terms of this legitimacy and deliver America from shame to decency.

This bestowed enormous political and cultural power on the American left, and led to the greatest array of government-sponsored social programs in history—at an expense, by some estimates, of more than $22 trillion. But for the left to wield this power, there had to be a great menace to fight against—a tenacious menace that kept America uncertain of its legitimacy, afraid for its good name.

This amounted to a formula for power: The greater the menace to the nation’s moral legitimacy, the more power redounded to the left. And the ’60s handed the left a laundry list of menaces to be defeated. If racism was necessarily at the top of the list, it was quickly followed by a litany of bigotries ending in “ism” and “phobia.”

The left had important achievements. It did rescue America from an unsustainable moral illegitimacy. It also established the great menace of racism as America’s most intolerable disgrace. But the left’s success has plunged it into its greatest crisis since the ’60s. The Achilles’ heel of the left has been its dependence on menace for power. Think of all the things it can ask for in the name of fighting menaces like “systemic racism” and “structural inequality.” But what happens when the evils that menace us begin to fade, and then keep fading?

It is undeniable that America has achieved since the ’60s one of the greatest moral evolutions ever. That is a profound problem for the left, whose existence is threatened by the diminishment of racial oppression. The left’s unspoken terror is that racism is no longer menacing enough to support its own power. The great crisis for the left today—the source of its angst and hatefulness—is its own encroaching obsolescence. Today the left looks to be slowly dying from lack of racial menace.

A single white-on-black shooting in Ferguson, Mo., four years ago resulted in a prolonged media blitz and the involvement of the president of the United States. In that same four-year period, thousands of black-on-black shootings took place in Chicago, hometown of the then-president, yet they inspired very little media coverage and no serious presidential commentary.

White-on-black shootings evoke America’s history of racism and so carry an iconic payload of menace. Black-on-black shootings carry no such payload, although they are truly menacing to the black community. They evoke only despair. And the left gets power from fighting white evil, not black despair.

Today’s left lacks worthy menaces to fight. It is driven to find a replacement for racism, some sweeping historical wrongdoing that morally empowers those who oppose it. (Climate change?) Failing this, only hatred is left.

Hatred is a transformative power. It can make the innocuous into the menacing. So it has become a weapon of choice. The left has used hate to transform President Trump into a symbol of the new racism, not a flawed president but a systemic evil. And he must be opposed as one opposes racism, with a scorched-earth absolutism.

For Martin Luther King Jr., hatred was not necessary as a means to power. The actual details of oppression were enough. Power came to him because he rejected hate as a method of resisting menace. He called on blacks not to be defined by what menaced them. Today, because menace provides moral empowerment, blacks and their ostensible allies indulge in it. The menace of black victimization becomes the unarguable truth of the black identity. And here we are again, forever victims.

Yet the left is still stalked by obsolescence. There is simply not enough menace to service its demands for power. The voices that speak for the left have never been less convincing. It is hard for people to see the menace that drives millionaire football players to kneel before the flag. And then there is the failure of virtually every program the left has ever espoused—welfare, public housing, school busing, affirmative action, diversity programs, and so on.

For the American left today, the indulgence in hate is a death rattle.

User avatar
Marie
Certified Fan
Posts: 31923
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:13 pm
Location: In front of my computer

Re: The Hateful Left

Postby Marie » Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:53 am

LOL, someone should inform Steele that there hasn't been an authentic "left" in this country since the early 1970s. Democratic liberals in Congress co-opted and neutralized all he New Left's issues back then, restoring the traditional liberal/conservative continuum to American politics.

At which point conservatives proceeded to adopt the erstwhile left's terminology and tactics (note their devotion to such leftist phrases as "political correctness"), a decision that has been devastating to the Republican Party, turning the GOP into a reactive, unimaginative, ideology-driven organization bent on one goal: to overturn all the social progress legislation that liberals have forged since the election of Franklin Roosevelt and replace it with a wizened, sclerotic approach to government which, while purporting to favor individual freedom, actually has had the effect of locking the country into more and more rigid income groups from which there is no escape.

Steele has been around for a long time and has made a nice living off this relentless march to a new dark age. An early example of self-styled "black conservative" intellectuals, Steele doesn't deal in ideas so much as constructs. He never strays from his niche since he knows where his bread is buttered.

Steele has produced reams of drivel over his misspent lifetime. He recently dedicated a whole book to the theory that Barack Obama "hungers to be black" on account of his having been born to an interracial couple. It never once occurs to Steele, himself an African American laboring on the conservative plantation, that black isn't an identity Obama has to strive for; it's an identity society automatically assigned by virtue of his appearance. Yet such self-evident truths continue to elude the writer, tome after dreary tome and column after exasperating column.

-Marie-
You find out what someone is really like in "battle," and Olbermann is who you want to be in a foxhole with, Patrick said. "On the air, we had each others' backs," said Olbermann.
-David Goetzl: "Keith Olbermann, Dan Patrick still brothers long after ESPN's 'Big Show'"; MediaPost blog, 4-6-2012


Image


Return to “What Story Are YOU Talking About?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests