By Victor Davis Hanson
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
It is a depressing characteristic of government today to
loudly enact legislation and impose regulations of little utility, while
neglecting to address the root causes of truly serious problems. We do not know
to what degree a Sandy Hook or a Columbine is caused by improperly treated
mental illness, violent video games, Hollywood’s saturation of the popular
culture with graphic mayhem — or access, by hook or by crook, to semi-automatic
“assault” rifles. But we do know that the latter play almost no role in Chicago’s
horrific annual tally of 500 murders — and account for less than 1 percent of
the gun-related deaths in the United States each year. Yet we also confess that
taking on Hollywood, the video-game industry, or the mental-health
establishment would be far more acrimonious and politically risky than
demonizing the National Rifle Association.
In the case of big-city murdering, serious talk about the
culture of gangs and the causes of the pathology of thousands of minority
males, who are vastly overrepresented as both victims and perpetrators of gun
violence, is a no-win proposition, given the politically correct climate and
the existential issues involved. Can one imagine any politician decrying the
violent lyrics of rap music, the culture of dependency on government, or the
absence of stiff incarceration for the use of a gun during a crime with the
same zeal that he has shown in going after the NRA?
The result of such selective and easy morality is that we
are now engaging in banning certain types of guns with little understanding of
how they work. Take your grandfather’s semi-automatic .22 varmint gun, beef up
the round a bit, add some scary-looking black plastic M-16-like adornments, and
you now have a demonic “assault rifle.” The gun debate will cause needless
divisions and acrimony, but in no measurable way will it either prevent another
Sandy Hook or reduce the yearly slaughter of young males in our cities. When
the next Columbine occurs — with the perpetrators using pump shotguns, or
multiple ten-shot magazines, or sticks of dynamite — we will pat ourselves on
the back and say it would have been worse had an “assault rifle” been used. And
if the latter is employed, it will probably not have been legally acquired and
more likely than not will be used by someone long recognized as unhinged.
After all the fighting over the fiscal cliff, and all the
demagoguery over the rich paying their fair share, we have achieved almost
nothing tangible in terms of reducing the debt. The president offered no budget
freeze, no curtailment of entitlement costs, no adjustments in age or other
conditions of eligibility — nothing at all that would have addressed the
astronomical rate at which the government has been spending since 2009. Obama
is therapist-in-chief, and he avoids any tragic admission that there are
sometimes just a bad choice and a worse one — in this case, between cutting
back and going broke.
We used to talk of going back to the “Clinton tax rates”
— a campaign sound bite that of course meant that we most certainly would not
increase the once-hated but now-popular Bush rates on the 99 percent, much less
return to Clinton-era spending levels. In other words, we taxed the 1 percent
more, felt great about it, declared success, and now still face financial Armageddon
— terrified to tell the 99 percent that either their taxes must go way up, or
their entitlements must go way down, or more likely both. What we have failed
to do would solve the problem and cause a national outcry; what we have
actually done is as widely popular as it will do nothing.
Note that the war is not between the easily caricatured 1
percent, who pay almost 40 percent of aggregate federal income taxes, and the
put-upon 99 percent; rather, it is a far more messy fight between the
struggling 53 percent who pay income tax and mostly do not receive food stamps,
unemployment insurance, or disability coverage, and the 47 percent who do not
pay income tax and are more likely to receive state and federal assistance.
Keeping small residual forces in Iraq and Afghanistan
might well have allowed the provisional consensual governments in those two
countries to remain viable and not be transmogrified into tyrannies. To do so
might have ensured that the terrible cost in American blood and treasure over the
last decade at least had offered Afghans and Iraqis — and the world — something
better than the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Yet to keep small bases there would
also have angered American voters, sick of both wars and of the seeming
ingratitude of those we did so much to help.
In contrast, packing up and going home, as we have from
Iraq and will from Afghanistan, offers instant sound bites — something like
“ending perpetual wars.” When the videos pop up of Taliban lynchings or a civil
war in Iraq — remember the Kurds in 1991 and the Vietnamese in 1975 — we can
shrug that this was the inevitable wages of President Bush’s sins, not
something that President Obama could have prevented.
No one knows how to break the cycle of Middle East
violence, much less how to address the tribalism, statism, lack of transparency
and freedom, gender apartheid, religious fundamentalism, and intolerance so
ubiquitous in the Arab world and so much at the heart of its wide-scale poverty
and violence. To attempt any such discussion would be caricatured as
neo-colonialist, imperialist, racist, naïve, or culturally ignorant.
Iraq and Afghanistan have been too costly to serve as
models; Libya is now a hushed-up embarrassment; our positions have changed so
much on Syria that there now are no positions; and Mohamed Morsi’s achievement
in Egypt will have been to create nostalgia for the authoritarian Hosni
Mubarak. No need to touch on the events in Algeria. The French, alone, are
leading from the front in trying to save Mali from Islamists. Who would wish to
wade into these morasses, or even talk about them with any degree of honesty?
It is far easier to focus on the Israelis: They are few.
They have not until recently had oil or gas; the world hates them; and their
government is lawful and Western. The result is that demonizing Mr. Netanyahu
as the nexus of Middle East violence carries no risks, and offers no solutions,
and therefore is preferable to the dangers of candidly crafting a policy to
attempt to deal with the pathologies of the modern Arab world. If it is a
question of attempting to deal fairly with Netanyahu or declaring jihad a
personal spiritual journey, the latter wins every time.
Nowhere is tokenism more manifest than in the debate over
illegal immigration. No one knows whether there are 11 or 18 million illegal
immigrants in the United States. It is taboo to suggest that the nearly $50
billion sent annually to Latin America from the U.S. is largely from illegal immigrants, or that the
remittances increase the likelihood that these foreign nationals must seek
public assistance here, which drains local and state economies. Nor would any
sane person publicly associate illegal immigration with the alarming DUI
statistics in California or point out that it contributes to the record number
of hit-and-run accidents in Los Angeles County.
Instead we talk grandly of “comprehensive immigration
reform” and the “Dream Act,” but both opponents and supporters avoid the
subsequent details like the plague. Everyone knows that there are millions of
hard-working Latin American immigrants, who steer clear of public assistance
and crime, have worked for years in the U.S., and deserve some sort of pathway
to citizenship — contingent upon English proficiency, a trial period of legal
residence, and a small fine for having broken the law in coming here illegally.
But we also dare not speak the truth about the hundreds
of thousands of illegal aliens, perhaps a million or more, who are unemployed
and on public assistance, who have been convicted of a crime, or who have just
recently arrived. We know that unenforced laws erode respect for jurisprudence,
and that simply granting open access to Latin Americans shorts those from
elsewhere who wait lawfully for their turn and who may in fact have capital,
education, and expertise that would allow them to contribute to the U.S. far
more quickly.
Given that mess, we prefer the banality of “a grand
bargain,” without acknowledgment that the Latino elite community would hardly
be willing, as the price of a pathway for millions, to agree to the deportation
of hundreds of thousands of illegals who are unemployed, have criminal records,
or have just arrived — much less to sign off on closing the border, securing
it, and making legal immigration ethnically blind, contingent on skills and
education, and roughly equal in its treatment of all applicants. So we blather
on.
There are two general types of leaders: the vast majority
who talk in banalities while they offer tokens in lieu of solutions, and the
rare tragic statesmen like Lincoln and Churchill who tell the truth, endure
odium in their lifetime, find solutions, and do not live to see the full
appreciation of their courage.
Unfortunately, we live in a low era of tokenism and
banality.
No comments:
Post a Comment