From the WSJ Opinion Archives
Why
We Hate Identity Politics
Our item Wednesday about an incident in which airline passengers were alarmed
by a group of imams praying in Arabic brought this interesting comment from
reader Dennis Gibb:
Recently, my wife and I were on a trip to Europe and we changed planes at Kennedy Airport. When we reported for our overseas flight, we found that we were accompanied by a large number of ultra-Orthodox Jews, who are a familiar sight in New York with their beards, long sideburns, black clothing and hats.
As we sat waiting for the flight, the rabbi with the Jewish men announced that they were all going to perform their normal sundown prayer early because they did not want to frighten anyone on the plane with what might, to the uninformed, have sounded like an Arabic prayer.
It is so PC that these supposed Islamic scholars have so little sensitivity to what is happening in the world that they would insist on imposing actual Arabic prayers on an airplane filled with people uninformed as to the reason or the nature of the activity?
This is an excellent point. Look at the Council on American-Islamic Relations' Web site, and you'll be hard-pressed to find any indication that CAIR cares about the feelings of Americans who, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, have perfectly understandable apprehensions about being on a plane with Arab men chanting "Allah, Allah."
We're not arguing that the passengers were in the right, only that if they overreacted, their overreaction was understandable in light of recent history. By demanding sensitivity while refusing to offer any in return, CAIR is behaving boorishly, abusing the good nature of the American character.
Practitioners of identity politics not only act like jackasses while insisting that they are entitled to sensitivity. They also claim to advocate "diversity" while demanding that others march in ideological lockstep. The Pioneer Press of St. Paul, Minn., reports on one example:
It started out as a who's who of Twin Cities law firms joining forces to lure minority attorneys to Minnesota.
But the Twin Cities Diversity in Practice group set off a tempest when it excluded a firm that handled a pair of landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases challenging affirmative action.
The group's leaders said letting the Minneapolis law firm of Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand join the effort would hamper its mission: to make the bar more racially diverse. . . .
Maslon's managing attorney said she and others in her firm were mystified by the group's decision to deny them membership.
"We agree with their mission, absolutely agree with their mission," said Terri Krivosha, chairwoman of the Maslon firm's governance committee. . . .
The controversy centers on Maslon attorney Kirk Kolbo, who represented three University of Michigan applicants--two for an undergraduate program and one for the law school--who sued as part of a class action because of the school's raced-based admissions policies.
If Maslon itself had colorblind hiring policies, the exclusion would make sense, but Krivosha tells the paper that her firm is committed to "diversity": "We are moving on to work for an inclusive legal community and an inclusive law firm. Diversity is a bedrock of our firm." But the Twin Cities DIP group insists the firm be ideologically pure in its choice of clients.
A Los Angeles Daily News story about the kerfuffle over O.J. Simpson's "book" offers what may be the reductio ad absurdum of identity politics:
Eddie Jones, president of the Los Angeles Civil Rights Association, criticized News Corp. and publisher Judith Regan for canceling "If I Did It," a book and filmed-for-TV interview with Simpson in which he describes how he would have killed ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and friend Ronald Goldman.
"O.J. should have been able to tell his side of his story for the book," Jones said. "He was exonerated and acquitted of all charges, but in the eyes of white America, he is still guilty. It's a modern-day lynching. . . . (Serial killer) Jeffrey Dahmer was able to do an interview. The Menendez brothers killed their parents and did interviews.
"Timothy McVeigh killed all those people in (the) Oklahoma City (bombing) and still did interviews and wrote a book.
"Why is it O.J. can't write his book and tell his side of the story?"
The murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, although not racially motivated, did turn into something of a modern-day lynching. In the Jim Crow South, local juries, acting out of racial solidarity, were known to acquit white men who were plainly guilty of killing blacks. Isn't that what happened here? Only according to the president of the Los Angeles Civil Rights Association, the innocent people who were murdered were not the real victims.
What
Would We Do Without Simpson?
"Simpson Says He Did Book for Money"--headline, Associated Press,
Nov. 22
The
Best Living Ex-President
"Former President George Bush, an angry father, took on Arab critics of
son President George W. Bush during a testy exchange at a leadership conference,"
the Associated Press reports from Abu Dhabi:
When a college student told Mr. Bush that U.S. wars were aimed at opening markets for American companies and that globalization was contrived for America's benefit at the expense of the rest of the world, Mr. Bush shot back: "I think that's weird, and it's nuts. To suggest that everything we do is because we're hungry for money, I think that's crazy. I think you need to go back to school."
The hostile comments came during a question-and-answer session after Mr. Bush finished a folksy address on leadership, telling how deeply hurt he feels when his presidential son is criticized.
"This son is not going to back away," Mr. Bush said, his voice quivering. "He's not going to change his view because some poll says this or some poll says that, or some heartfelt comments from the lady who feels deeply in her heart about something. You can't be president of the United States and conduct yourself if you're going to cut and run. This is going to work out in Iraq. I understand the anxiety. It's not easy."
Given the antics of Bill Clinton and especially Jimmy Carter, it's good to know that there's one ex-president willing to stand up for his country.
Thank
You, Mr. Reagan
Here's a feel-good story from the Financial Times:
Next week's Nato summit in the Latvian capital of Riga, the first to be held on the territory of the former Soviet Union, will remove "the very last traces of the Iron Curtain" from the region, according to Vaira Vike-Freiburga, the Latvian president.
"It's a very visible way of stamping on to people's minds, both in Latvia and elsewhere, this change in the map of Europe, this change in the map of the world," Mrs Vike-Freiburga said in an interview with the Financial Times on Wednesday. . . .
While some Latvians have complained about the cost and inconvenience of the event, most appreciate the symbolic value of flying Nato's flags on the borders of Russia--successor to the former Soviet Union and a country attempting to re-establish its influence over former subject states.
If you're old enough to have been aware of world affairs 20 years ago, take a moment to ponder how unlikely this would have seemed back then.
The
World's Smallest Violin
"A Palestinian
who fought a legal battle to attend an Israeli university says the six months
she has been given to study for her PhD is simply not enough," the BBC
reports:
Sawsan Salameh won a scholarship to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem but was banned by the army from attending. . . .
Salameh was admitted to university but fell foul of Israeli army regulations banning Palestinian students from the West Bank from entering Israel . . ., where the university is located.
Why doesn't she go to one of the many excellent universities in the Palestinian territories--or, for that matter, in Egypt, or Syria, or Saudi Arabia?
What
Would We Do Without I-Teams?
"I-Team: Unlicensed Drivers Disregard State's Driving Laws"--headline,
WESH-TV
Web site (Orlando, Fla.), Nov. 21
'Honest,
Officer, It's Just Powdered Milk!'
"Cocaine Seized in Big Bust"--headline, Wisconsin State Journal (Madison),
Nov. 22
Spending
a Penny
"Once-Fired Deputy Faces Urination Charges"--headline, Arizona Daily
Star (Tucson), Nov. 22
Bottom Stories of the Day
- "Idaho Zamboni Drivers Fired After Trip to Fast-Food Drive-Thru"--headline,
Associated
Press, Nov. 22
- "Man Who Ran Across Freeway Is Hit by Car"--headline, Seattle
Post-Intelligencer, Nov. 22
- "Garbage Truck Purchase OK'd by Council"--headline, Times
(Trenton, N.J.), Nov. 24
- "Brangelina in Surprise Vietnam Visit"--headline, CNN.com,
Nov. 24
- "Ecuador's Leftist Candidate Slams Bush"--headline, Associated Press, Nov. 24
Rubbernecking
and Romney
OK, we'll admit it: We still look at Andrew Sullivan's Time magazine blog. Up
until 33 months ago, we found his stuff generally sensible, if sometimes overwrought.
But 2/24 changed everything, and now his blog has become more of a guilty pleasure,
something to gawk at morbidly like the site of a horrible accident.
Lately Sullivan has a bee in his bonnet about Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who may be running for president, and who opposes the decision by his state's Supreme Judicial Court imposing same-sex marriage, the mainspring of Sullivanism. Sullivan calls Romney "the Christianist candidate" (Christianist being a favorite Sullivan neologism).
"As with most Christianists, the idea of allowing different states to try different solutions to the same problem is dispensable when moral absolutes are involved," Sullivan writes. He criticizes Romney for calling John McCain's position on same-sex marriage (against it, but for letting states decide) "disingenuous." Sullivan is right about this; McCain's position is just fine (and we happen to agree with it).
"Of course, Romney knows better," Sullivan claims. "But he's going for the Christianist wing, the wing that only supports states' rights when states support Christianist policy prescriptions." But then, after terming Romney a "Christianist," Sullivan turns around and declares that the governor, who is Mormon, isn't a Christian:
Mitt Romney will surely provide a fascinating glimpse into the Christianist mindset in the coming two years. He will be the candidate for the Christianist right, but he's not a Christian. And many Christianists may well recoil at the man's Mormon faith. . . . This emerges as a delicious irony: a candidacy made possible by sectarian politics could subsequently be made impossible by the same forces. I'm sorry if I have little sympathy for Romney's plight. Live by fundamentalism; die by fundamentalism.
It is true that some Christians share Sullivan's view that Mormons are not Christian. It is also true that Mormons describe themselves as Christians. Who is right is a theological question well beyond the scope of this column, but it does point to the absurdity of Sullivan's contention that social conservatism is a form of religious "fundamentalism." Romney may agree with conservative evangelicals on policy issues, but they plainly do not agree on the religious fundamentals.
Far from being "theocratic," what is known as the "religious right" is in fact quite ecumenical, as we have argued. Sullivan eventually figures this out:
Since the galvanizing force for Christianism (not Christianity, I might add) is the imposition of public policy criminalizing all abortions, banning all legal protections for gay couples, and banning embryonic stem cell research, the theological issues do not seem to me a huge problem for the Christianist Popular Front.
If theological issues are not at the heart of what Sullivan calls "Christianism," why does he give it an appellation that suggests that they are? Obviously because he wishes to suggest that the "Christianists" who disagree with him on social issues are on the same moral plane as the "Islamists" who wage war on America. Like those on the left who label anyone who disagree with them a "fascist," Sullivan is simply engaging in name-calling rather than contend with serious opposing views.
Meanwhile, if Romney isn't a Christian by Sullivan's lights, who is? Why, Madonna:
The Madonna NBC concert was, to my mind, astonishingly good. . . . I believe Madonna is often an authentically Catholic pop-artist. Case in point: a whole set last night focused on chidren [sic] orphaned by AIDS in Africa, and used as its leitmotif a verse from Matthew's Gospel. Here is a pop performer, reaching millions, and proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. . . . Madonna is closer to Jesus' authentic teachings in this respect than many Christianists.
You didn't think we meant the Virgin Mary, did you?
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Ethel Fenig, Doug Black, Michael Segal, John Williamson, Jeff Techentin, Jim Kelly, Jeff Roby, Jacob Lybbert, Steve Shineman, Tom Dziubek, Lori Cohen, John Nernoff and Terry Hinshaw. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Henry Manne: Milton Friedman was right: "Corporate social responsibility" is bunk.
- Daniel Henninger: The Bush doctrine is worth saving.
- Peggy Noonan: We don't need to solve the immigration problem forever. We need to solve it now.
- The Journal Editorial Report: Tune in this weekend for a discussion of Latin America and Rep. Charles Rangel's call for military conscription.
And on the Taste page:
- Review & Outlook: O.J. Simpson gets the hook, in a victory over the debasement of our culture.
- Tony & Tacky: Are you naughty or nice? It probably doesn't matter.
- Steve Moore: Time for action on huggable, lovable dolls.
- Kyle Smith: Preston Sturges's romantic comedies don't shy away from the subject of money.
- Nathaniel Popper: Russian Jews used to be a voice of dissent. Not anymore.
