|
|
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
|
|||||||||
|
Send to receive updates when new columns are added to Reform. FrontPage's Archie Bunker Politics by Ken Sanes But her controversial decision turned out to be only a sideline to the main action on "The Edge" that night, as conservative Fox News political analyst David Horowitz got into one of his infamous confrontations in a debate over the Pledge issue with liberal black columnist Julianne Malveaux. When Malveaux apparently tried to break in to what Horowitz was saying to object to something, Horowitz replied, "Didn't they teach you any manners at MIT," (where Malveaux received a Ph.D.). He then accused Malveaux of being unable to keep her "mouth shut" when other people are talking. Malveaux, apparently believing that Horowitz's comment was based on a racist stereotype of blacks, responded, "you -- you, you, white boy, will not give me manners lessons!" Of course, Malveaux's reference to Horowitz as "white boy" was inflammatory and a form of name calling, even though the transcript this description is based on (which appears on Horowitz's FrontPage Magazine) and the televised program both show that it was Horowitz who was on the attack. Predictably, after her comment, Horowitz and Malveaux ended up accusing each other of engaging in racism, which reduced the discussion to the kind of absurdity that is now all too common in political debate. Unfortunately, Horowitz's FrontPage Magazine has now escalated the hostilities, engaging in a retaliatory attack on Malveaux in a column by FrontPage associate editor Jennifer Kabbany. The column takes the level of debate to a new low (if that is possible) and reveals one of the many strategies the conservative FrontPage uses in its efforts to put the left on the defensive. While it was written by Kabbany, the context and content make clear that she is acting as a surrogate for Horowitz, who is editor-in-chief of FrontPage. In the column, Kabbany takes Malveaux to task because, on Fox's "The Edge", Malveaux revealed that she too doesn't say the Pledge of Allegiance. As Malveaux explained, she believes the words in the Pledge, including the reference to liberty and justice, are "nothing but a lie." That admission provided just the opening FrontPage, or at least associate editor Kabbany, needed to go on the attack. In a symbolically dated, July 4, column, Kabbany suggested that both Rep. Henri Brooks and Malveaux should leave America because they don't say the Pledge of Allegiance. According to Kabbany, "Americans who refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance do not deserve their U.S. citizenship. Tennessee congresswoman Henri Brooks and syndicated columnist Julianne Malveaux, in a recent television appearance (on "The Edge"), expressed their disgust for the American Flag. These women take for granted Old Glory and all it stands for….I urge anti-pledgers to leave the country of their own free will. If you hate America, why live here? Of course, they will never leave, because they know America is the greatest country in the world." Kabbany's column is a throwback to a kind of jingoistic political attack that may have had more resonance in the past than it does today. FrontPage clearly revels in just these qualities and tries to turn them into a virtue by headlining the piece, "America: Love It or Leave It". But what is particularly disturbing about the column is that it is obviously intended to arouse hatred among conservative readers, and direct it at Brooks and Malveaux. It unambiguously suggests that they no longer have the same moral rights as other people when it comes to participating in American society because of their refusal to recite the Pledge. It is hard to believe this kind of attack still goes on today. But when you read the rest of Kabbany's column you begin to get an idea of the mindset behind it. On the plight of African Americans, for example, Kabbany says, "Certainly America's past contains mistakes, but now African-Americans are doing just fine, as evident in Ms. Brook's position as a state congresswoman - or, for that matter, Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court and Colin Powell as Secretary of State." So, in Kabbany's column, the mass murder of blacks in American history is reduced to "mistakes" (Oops - millions dead!) and the current plight of black Americans, with millions still trapped in poverty, is reduced to "doing just fine". But this is only the beginning. The more you read Kabbany's attack on Malveaux, the clearer it becomes that her piece isn't merely an expression of an Archie Bunker mentality. It is also an unintended caricature in which Kabbany reproduces some of the most blatant flaws in this mindset, while apparently believing she is making a convincing case. Thus, she says, "I take it personally when people like Brooks and Malveaux take their citizenship for granted. My father was born in Damascus, Syria. He came to the United States when he was 20-years-old in search of a good life. All he had was $200 and a dream. He worked very hard, juggling two jobs and school full-time, to make something of himself….. Often, and especially during the Fourth of July season, I thank God that I am an American citizen, and do not have to suffer the fate of the Chinese or the Sudanese, to name a few. Had my Dad decided to stay in the Middle East, my life would be much different right now." As in the reference to "mistakes" and blacks "doing just fine" Kabbany gives no indication she is aware of the irony in her description. The ancestors of most African Americans, after all, didn't come to America like her father did to improve their lot in life through hard work. Instead of having "$200 and a dream" they had chains and a nightmare. Instead of "juggling two jobs and school full-time" they were property, and what they "juggled" was brutality, slave labor and death. More recently, many blacks alive today still remember the era of overt segregation and discrimination. When Kabbany defends the passage in the Pledge that refers to "one nation, under God", she descends into the same kind of unintended irony. She writes, "The saying 'one nation, under God,' reminds us why we fought so many wars against Communism. As a nation, we believe that God is on our side, no matter how many leftist professors, writers, politicians and special interest groups try to change that fact." Again, she gives no indication she is aware of the irony in her statement, despite the fact that much of the intolerance and slaughter of history - including much of the mass murder of blacks - was committed by people who believed they had God on their side. Her reference to "leftist professors, writers, politicians and special interest groups" trying to change the fact that God is on America's side, makes clear that she is using the idea of God, as it has been used so many times in the past, as an instrument of polarization. In her worldview, it is Godless leftist outsiders who threaten the true, righteous, America. Kabbany's column and the transcript of Horowitz's encounter with Malveaux have, not surprisingly, generated some letters to the editor for FrontPage. One letter, by reader Nicholas Freedman, said the following, "I was amused by your Pledge of Allegiance article. As an American who did indeed move to another country, I can tell you that your assertions that blacks 'in this country have much more freedom and opportunity than in any other country in the world' are not true. You need look no further than Canada, which has ranked higher than the US in every measure made of comparative standard-of-living rates in the last twenty years…." FrontPage editor Richard Poe responded in a note below the letter, not by addressing the issue, but with a personal remark, much like the personal attacks leveled by Kabbany and Horowitz: "I am glad you are enjoying your sojourn in Canada," Poe wrote. "Any other Americans who resent living in this country should give serious consideration to emulating Mr. Freedman's example." The question is, why has FrontPage adopted this antiquated "love it or leave it" approach in its fight with the left? Perhaps Kabbany just doesn't know any better. But FrontPage editor-in-chief Horowitz obviously does. That leads me to suspect that FrontPage is deliberately doing something counter-intuitive, here, embracing a kind of aggressive intolerance that many conservatives have long since distanced themselves from. But it is a peculiarly postmodern form of intolerance that nostalgically revives Archie-Bunker-style political hate-mongering, which appeals to some conservatives because it expresses what they really feel in a way that is unacceptable to liberal culture. Like the chant "We're here; we're queer; get used to it," FrontPage's "America: Love It or Leave It" rhetoric turns what has been stigmatized into a rallying cry of political identity. I don't know if FrontPage or Horowitz have used this approach before. But it is important to make clear that this is a mockery of patriotism, and that what America is really about is freedom of conscience. If freedom of conscience means anything, it means the ability to take an unpopular position without having others try to deny your moral rights as a person, including the right to live in your own country. That is an ideal that is very definitely worth pledging one's allegiance to -- or not -- as each person chooses.
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
