Politics and its Discontents

Talk is cheap, but it can cost. Three takes on the matter, with apologies in advance for the somewhat rambling nature of what follows:

First, let's consider the observations of Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds, writing in the Washington Examiner, concerning the rantings of James Lee, the charming fellow who took hostages at the Discovery Channel's offices:

In contemporary America, no respectable person would advocate, say, the involuntary sterilization of blacks or Jews. Why, then, should it be any more respectable to advocate the involuntary sterilization of everyone? Or even of those who cause “social deterioration?”

Likewise, references to particular ethnic or religious groups as “viruses” or “cancers” in need of extirpation are socially unacceptable, triggering immediate thoughts of genocide and mass murder.

Why, then, should it be acceptable to refer to all humanity in this fashion? Does widening the circle of eliminationist rhetoric somehow make it better?

Meanwhile, John Hinderaker at Powerline ponders the deep thoughts of Karel de Gucht, the European Trade Commissioner, who had offered the following:

On Thursday, with the Middle East peace process in the news, Mr. De Gucht picked yet another fight. Jews, he told Belgian radio, have a "belief" that they are "always right." He described his frustration at debating the Middle East because "it is not easy even with a moderate Jew to have a conversation."

He continued: "Don't underestimate the power of the Jewish lobby in the capital. That is best organized lobby in the states. And they have an influence on politicians, Republicans and Democrats."

Very nice. As Hinderaker observes, this led to criticism, which lead to the usual non-apology apology from de Gucht:

"I gave an interview yesterday to the Flemish radio. I was also asked about the Middle East peace talks. I gave my personal point of view. I regret that the comments that I made have been interpreted in a sense that I did not intend. I did not mean in any possible way to cause offense or stigmatize the Jewish Community. I want to make clear that anti-Semitism has no place in today's world and is fundamentally against our European values."

A hanging curveball, that statement. Hinderaker then smashes the hanging curve ball deep into the bleachers:

I suppose Jews can be excused for questioning whether history supports the claim that anti-Semitism is "fundamentally against...European values."

But then Hinderaker makes an observation that doesn't necessarily follow:

For whatever reason, we don't seem to see the same resurgence in the U.S. that is happening in Europe. I would say with considerably more confidence that anti-Semitism is fundamentally against American values.

This is why Pat Buchanan and Jesse Jackson never have any difficulty getting air time on CNN, of course. But I digress

Here's the thing. I'm guessing that Reynolds had his tongue somewhat in cheek when he wrote his piece for the Examiner. It's a goof on the notion that somehow conservative commenters are responsible for any violence that happens when a crazy person acts crazy. Both Lee and Ted Kaczynski, a/k/a the Unabomber, were fans of Al Gore. That doesn't make Al Gore responsible for what they did, though.

De Gucht is a different matter, because he wields actual power. As does John Holdren, the man Barack Obama appointed as his "science czar." As Reynolds notes:

[O]ne need only look to the writings of President Obama’s “science czar,” John Holdren to find something similar. Seeing humanity as destructive, Holdren wrote in favor of forced abortion and putting sterilizing agents in the drinking water, and in particular of sterilizing people who cause “social deterioration.”

And here is the serious point Reynolds wants to make. No one wants "social deterioration," of course. The key is looking back at what (or who) is asserted to cause "social deterioration." And equally important is asking hard questions. Why does John Holdren believe what he believes? And an even better question -- why would he have the President's ear?

Meanwhile, our good friend Gino wrote something very interesting on his blog:

In my last discussion, I intentionally self-Godwined.

Trying to compare an illegal alien dishwasher to a convicted murderer, and then using this comparison to justifying taking from his innocent children the only grace the roulette wheel of life may ever offer them, was just more than this two-fingered typist (and mediocre intellect) serving as your host was able to deal with while keeping his honor intact.

Rather than continue, I turned the knife and thrust backward.

You win.

A little background: Gino had an earlier post up about the plight of "anchor babies," children born in the United States of parents in the country illegally. Gino decries (rightly, in my view) the idea that a kid who has grown up in the United States could end up being deported to the country of his parent's origin, especially if the child knows nothing of that country. Gino also has a pretty contentious comments section and because he became so disgusted with some of the comments, he played the Hitler card, which of course pretty much ended the thread.

I understand why Gino did this -- reading through the comments on his post, I picture him pacing the floor like Popeye, saying "that's all I can stand, I can't stand no more." And therein lies the challenge we face. Those who would prefer to silence us, those who are motivated by hatred and anger, want us to give up. Facing the provocations every damned day wears on a person. It's unpleasant as hell.

If I could do it, I'd never write about politics. But as long as there are people like de Gucht and Holdren out there, you have to keep up the fight. Gino called off a fight on his blog because he wanted to fight another day. Whether we choose to engage or not, we are involved.