I thought this was an especially good piece by Krauthammer. His general message--for people to care enough about freedom to be willing to confront totalitarianism especially in the realm of ideas and the policies that extend from them--reminded me of this quote attributed to Plato, "The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men," (with variations ascribed to Edmund Burke, John Stuart Mill, and many others). The challenge, of course, is to be willing to step out in front of the crowd and put oneself at risk of criticism, ridicule, legal action, or even physical abuse. But that's what bullies count on, people not being willing to stand up to such intimidation.
Two months ago, a
petition bearing more than 110,000 signatures was delivered to The Post,
demanding a ban on any article questioning global warming. The petition arrived
the day before publication of my column, which consisted of precisely that
heresy.
The column ran as usual. But I was gratified by the show of intolerance
because it perfectly
illustrated my argument that the left is entering a new phase of ideological
agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether,
banishing from public discourse any and all opposition.
The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian. It declares certain
controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to
vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced.
Sometimes the word comes from on high, as when the president
of the United States declares the science of global warming to be
“settled.” Anyone who disagrees is then branded “anti-science.” And better
still, a “denier” — a brilliantly chosen calumny meant to impute to the climate
skeptic the opprobrium normally reserved for the hatemongers and crackpots who
deny the Holocaust.
Then last week, another outbreak. The newest closing of the leftist mind is
on gay marriage. Just as the science of global warming is settled, so, it
seems, are the moral and philosophical merits of gay marriage.
To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be
similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally.
Like the CEO
of Mozilla who resigned under pressure just 10
days into his job when it was disclosed that six years earlier he had
donated to California’s Proposition 8, which defined
marriage as between a man and a woman.
But why stop with Brendan Eich, the victim of this high-tech lynching? Prop
8 passed by half a million votes. Six million Californians joined Eich in
the crime of “privileging” traditional marriage. So
did Barack Obama. In that same year, he declared that his Christian beliefs
made him oppose gay marriage.
Yet under the new dispensation, this is outright bigotry. By that logic, the
man whom the left so ecstatically carried to the White House in 2008 was
equally a bigot.
The whole thing is so stupid as to be unworthy of exegesis. There is no
logic. What’s at play is sheer ideological prejudice — and the enforcement of
the new totalitarian norm that declares, unilaterally, certain issues to be
closed.
Closed to debate. Open only to intimidated acquiescence.
To this magic circle of forced conformity, the left would like to add
certain other policies, resistance to which is deemed a “war
on women.” It’s a colorful synonym for sexism. Leveling the charge is a
crude way to cut off debate.
Thus, to oppose late-term abortion is to make war on women’s “reproductive
health.” Similarly, to question Obamacare’s mandate of free contraception for
all.
Some oppose the regulation because of its impingement
on the free exercise of religion. Others on the simpler (nontheological)
grounds of a skewed hierarchy of values. Under the new law, everything is
covered, but a few choice things are given away free. To what does
contraception owe its exalted status? Why should it rank above, say,
antibiotics for a sick child, for which that same mother must co-pay?
Say that, however, and you are accused of denying women “access to contraception.”
Or try objecting to the new so-called Paycheck
Fairness Act for women, which is little more than a full-employment act for
trial lawyers. Sex discrimination is already illegal. What these new laws do is
relieve the plaintiffs of proving intentional discrimination. To bring suit,
they need only to show that women
make less in that workplace.
Like the White
House, where women make 88 cents to the men’s dollar?
That’s called “disparate impact.” Does anyone really think Obama consciously
discriminates against female employees, rather than the disparity being a
reflection of experience, work history, etc.? But just to raise such questions
is to betray heretical tendencies.
The good news is that the “war on women” charge is mostly cynicism, fodder
for campaign-year demagoguery. But the trend is growing. Oppose the current
consensus and you’re a denier, a bigot, a homophobe, a sexist, an enemy of the
people.
Long a staple of academia, the totalitarian impulse is spreading. What to
do? Defend the dissenters, even if — perhaps, especially if — you disagree with
their policy. It is — it was? — the American way.
No comments:
Post a Comment