Posted on 10/08/2001 8:22:56 AM PDT by Pokey78
As Democrats rediscover patriotism, the anti-American Left sulks.
THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11 in New York and at the Pentagon fell like an axe across old political groupings, threatening alliances of many years standing, as people realized, perhaps for the first time, how strange their bedfellows were. Conservatives discovered that there are other conservatives who think the worst thing about war is that it spends money, and tends to grow government. Liberals found that there are other liberals who think the worst thing about war is . . . the flag.
On Sunday, September 30, the New York Times ran three different attacks on Old Glory as being somehow oppressive and sinister. On the op-ed page, there was Maureen Dowd accusing George W. Bush of "playing the flag card" to curb free expression. In the magazine, George Packer explained why the flag wasn't displayed in his liberal household: "Display wasn't just politically suspect, it was simply bad taste, sentimental, primitive, sometimes aggressive." And on page one of the opinion section, Blaine Harden explored the dark side of patriotism, of which "the flag, as much as any symbol, embodies the paradox...constitutional rights, which supposedly form the core of patriotism's appeal, suddenly lost ground to fear." None of this was the view of the Democratic political classes, which were out waving flags with the best of them.
The war has revealed the deep split in the party between the patriotic and the patronizing, between the large body of elected officials (and those who vote for them) and the noisy group of chattering asses who are elected by no one, and spend their time talking. The first group define themselves by their policies; they love their own country, and argue with conservatives about the best ways to bring the good life to more people. The second group may share these policy views, but they define themselves largely by attitude, which is adversarial. They distrust their country, detest conservatives, but detest most of all the tastes of the masses whose interests they claim to protect.
This schism is of long standing. In his indispensable Our Country, Michael Barone traces its origins back to the Adlai Stevenson campaign of 1956. Stevenson had run in 1952 as a traditional Democrat, upbeat and chipper. But when he lost, he began to think he was too good for the country, a theory his more intense fans would readily agree with. "Stevenson was the first leading Democratic politician to become a critic rather than a celebrator of middle-class American culture," Barone writes--"the prototype of the liberal Democrat who would judge ordinary Americans by an abstract standard and find them wanting....When a woman assured him that all thinking people were for him, he responded, 'Yes, but I need to win a majority.' . . . It is unthinkable that Franklin Roosevelt would have ever said those things, or that those thoughts would have ever crossed his mind." Stevenson was not brighter than Eisenhower, just more ironic; and he read much less than did his future rival, John Kennedy. But to the horde of independent minds that clustered around him, his losses had given him the appeal of a martyr, if not of a saint. As Barone writes, "What was attractive to them was not his platform, but his attitude--his irony, his skepticism, his critical detachment from the roaring course of American life....They sought from the seemingly diffident Stevenson not so much changes of public policy, but a validation of their own cultural stance."
Stevenson was beaten by Ike, and four years later, by the more red-blooded appeal of Kennedy; but in 1968 the losing primary campaign of Eugene McCarthy, a man still more educated, more remote, and more cold-blooded than Stevenson, established the model of the outsider as the emotional template for a generation of liberals who defined themselves by their opposition to middle-class values and tastes. The culture itself, from which all else flowed, had begun to seem sinister. In her recent book "Inventing Herself," Elaine Showalter gives us this glowing account of the young Susan Sontag: "The ordinary details of American life...drove her crazy; led her to grind her teeth, twirl her hair, bite her nails, overeat. Especially popular culture. 'The weekly comedy shows festooned with canned laughter, the treacly Hit Parade, the hysterical narratings of baseball games and prize fights...were an endless torment.' Later, she would attach the same feelings of exasperation to television--unless it was French."
What a nice touch this last is. It was of course no surprise that days after the attack by the terrorists Sontag was one of the first to denounce this country as "stupid," and to complain that one of the sources of trouble was that America had too much power in the world. Similarly, Packer would state in his Sunday piece for the Times, "My wariness of the flag was [not] just a matter of political values. It was also a matter of culture and class. The flag was waved mainly by working-class people for whom loyalty to the family, the tribe, and nation hadn't been eroded by the pressure of middle-class ambition and self-conscious sophistication." Radicalism may have been chic, but patriotism clearly had no cachet whatsoever: "My family would sooner have upholstered the furniture in orange corduroy than show the colors on Memorial Day."
The worst post-attack display of this type of class hatred came in New York magazine. Michael Wolf lashed out at the "redneck" states and their president, and praised his city for being as un-American as humanly possible. "As any New Yorker knows, New York isn't really American. It is, as well, of course, the world's greatest Jewish city--who can doubt this was not a part of the message here?" One doubts this is what Senator Schumer--or any elected liberal in New York politics--was thinking. In the same magazine, one Mark Jacobson said he was "conflicted" about raising the flag; and didn't care much who got himself killed in Virginia. "If those lunatics want to fly a plane into the Pentagon, let Bush put up his magic shield."
The Timesmen never quite reached these heights of expression, but they still seemed to be searching for something to blame on the country. After the attacks, as Harden informs us, "a nationalistic undertow that is culturally conformist, ethnically exclusive, and belligerently militaristic began to silence dissent, spread fear among immigrants, and lock up people without explanation." Oh? Just when did this happen? When the two Presidents Bush, many cabinet members, mayors and governors and members of Congress urged Americans not to harass the Muslims among them? Ethnic exclusivity? When the prayer services at Yankee Stadium and the National Cathedral in Washington were loaded with and conducted by people of every religion and every ethnic group known to man? Belligerent militancy? Bush has drawn praise, mainly from Democrats, for the restraint and precision with which he is planning his moves. Silencing dissent?
Let us closely examine our small reign of terror and see what has really gone on. Journalists have failed to worship the ground on which Sontag walks. A cheesy late-night TV comedian lost two of his sponsors; he is still on the air. Two small-town journalists lost their jobs after alienating large numbers of readers. Other journalists who received angry letters have not lost their jobs, and were criticized less for their critiques of Bush--who was justly described as not having been good in his early public appearances--than for the sneering tones in which they had often described him, which now seemed less than funny. A history professor at the University of New Mexico was disciplined after he said to one of his classes, "Anyone who can blow up the Pentagon has my vote." At the time, the building was the tomb of nearly 200 people; he was seen as having rejoiced at the deaths of his countrymen. Fortunately, he had the good sense to see this, and quickly apologized, saying, correctly, "I was simply being at the moment an incredibly insensitive and unfeeling jerk."
AND SO, SOMETHING NEW is beginning to happen: The softer fringe of the attitude party is starting to peel itself off. Tentatively, slowly, some are allowing themselves now to feel warm toward their country, embarrassed though they may be by these primordial feelings. E.J. Dionne gives his fellow "progressives" permission to back the war effort, distrustful as they may be of its leadership. The New York Times is not irredeemable; columnist Thomas Friedman is now a full-throated hawk and patriot. Some will admit, though they won't fly flags themselves, that they rather like seeing the others'. "As the flags bloomed like flowers, I found they tapped emotions," George Packer admitted. "To me, those flags didn't represent flabby complacence, but alertness, grief, resolve, even love." Professors still rant, but fewer students are listening. Even Berkeley itself, once protest central, appears to have had second thoughts. As the Washington Times reported, "By far the largest campus gathering since the attacks was a September 17th memorial service for the victims that drew 12,000 students. The night of the attacks about 500 students staged a spontaneous candlelight vigil . . . the largest anti-retaliation demonstration drew 2,500 students out of a campus total of more than 32,000. It was followed the next day by an almost equally large 'Rally for America.' On September 24, pro-U.S. demonstrators rallied again, shouting 'USA, USA,' perhaps the first time that chant had been heard in the heart of American dissidence. . . . So far, this time, not a single flag has been burned."
When anti-globalization activists tried to switch tracks into anti-American rallies, they found themselves deserted by their most powerful allies. As John Sweeney, head of the AFL-CIO, firmly stated, "We deplore the assault, and we stand fully behind the leadership in this time of national crisis." He urged his members to collect funds to aid victims' families. In Congress, domestic liberals are discovering their inner hawk.
In the long war for the soul of national Democrats, the tide seems to be swinging back in the direction of Truman and Kennedy--veterans, patriots, and ardent Cold Warriors who had no patience at all with moral equivalence. At the same time, George W. Bush is becoming a president rather like Truman and Kennedy, an energetic defender of national interests, who knows that domestic divides must take second place to his primary purpose of leading a nation and a world at war. If this means an alliance with labor on some things, then so be it, as labor may soon stand with him. The Democrats are purging themselves of the virus of nihilism, and the hard left is isolating itself.
A healthy skepticism about the uses of power is always in order, but a smartass contempt for one's country and one's fellow citizens is something quite different. Most Democrats now get this; some students are learning. And one day, it may dawn on the chattering class.
Noemie Emery is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard.
I've been saying this all along.
It is, as well, of course, the world's greatest Jewish city--
I think Miami is now giving NYC a run for the money here,but so what? Being "the world's greatest Jewish city" can be true and irrelevant at the same time. What it primarily is amounts to a 3rd world cesspool where wealthy people come to work during the day,but leave to live at night.
A communist who doesn't want to admit it. Seriously. This isn't rhetoric. This is how the communists in the Socialists Workers Party of the USA used to describe themselves back in the 30's. They had to start calling themselves "liberals" to attract political power,since a liberal was seen as something positive back then. In fact,if they are "liberals",I'm the Flying Nun.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.