By Victor Davis Hanson
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Multicultural societies — from 19th-century
Austria–Hungary to contemporary Iraq, Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, and
Rwanda — have a poor record of keeping the peace between competing tribes. They
usually end up mired in nihilistic and endemic violence.
The only hope for history’s rare multiracial,
multiethnic, and multireligious nations is to adopt a common culture, one that
artificially suppresses the natural instinct of humans to identify first with
their particular tribe. America, in the logical spirit of the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution, was exceptional among modern societies in
slowly evolving from its original, largely European immigrant population to a
21st-century assimilated, integrated, and intermarried multiracial society, in
which religious and racial affiliations were incidental, not essential, to
one’s public character and identity.
But such a bold experiment was always tenuous and against
the cruel grain of history, in which the hard work of centuries could be easily
torn apart by the brief demagoguery of the moment. Unfortunately, President
Obama, ever since he first appeared on the national political scene in 2008,
has systematically adopted a rhetoric and an agenda that is predicated on
dividing up the country according to tribal grievances, in hopes of
recalibrating various factions into a majority grievance culture. In large
part, he has succeeded politically. But in doing so he has nearly torn the
country apart. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to suggest that no other recent
president has offered such a level of polarizing and divisive racial bombast.
Most recently, without citing any facts about the
circumstances of the police shootings in Minnesota and Louisiana, Barack Obama
castigated the police and the citizenry on their culpability for racial
disparity and prejudicial violence. “[T]hese fatal shootings are not isolated
incidents. They are symptomatic of the broader challenges within our
criminal-justice system, the racial disparities that appear across the system
year after year, and the resulting lack of trust that exists between law
enforcement and too many of the communities they serve.” Obama did not yet know
the race of the policemen involved (as in the case of Baltimore, the Minnesota
shooting involved non-white officers), the circumstances that led to the
shootings, or the backgrounds of either the officers or their victims.
Shortly afterwards, twelve Dallas law-enforcement
officers were shot, and five of them killed, by a black assassin who declared
solidarity with Black Lives Matter and proclaimed his hatred for white law
enforcement. That outbreak prompted Obama to take to the podium again to
recalibrate his earlier message. This time he amplified his gun-control
message, and somewhat delusionally added that the upswing in racial
polarization did not imperil national unity — in much the same way that, in
years past, he had announced that al-Qaeda was on the run, we were leaving
behind a stable Iraq, and ISIS was a jayvee organization. Note the Obama
editorial method in the case of police incidents, from Skip Gates to Louisiana
and Minnesota: He typically speaks before he has the facts, and when subsequent
information calls into question his talking points and theorizing, he never
goes back and makes the corrections. Nor does he address facts — from Ferguson
to Dallas — that do not fit his political agenda. Finally, a police shooting of
an African-American suspect is never an “isolated event,” while the shooting of
an officer by a black assassin is isolated and never really thematic of any
larger racial pathology.
We were introduced to Obama’s idea of career enhancement
through racial polarization during the 2008 political campaign. Obama had
earlier, when he saw it as being to his advantage, emphasized to the Chicago Sun-Times that as a devout
Christian he dutifully attended Rev. Wright’s church: “Yep. Every week. Eleven
o’clock service.” Indeed, Wright offered inspiration to Obama with his trite
“Audacity of Hope” refrain, which Obama borrowed for the title of his 2008
campaign booklet.
Once Wright was exposed on video as an uncouth racist and
anti-Semite, Obama made the necessary adjustments, as “every week”
transmogrified into spotty attendance that explained why Obama was shocked — in
Casablanca style — when his spiritual
mentor was publicly exposed. In that era of Obamamania, most people shrugged
that Obama surely never bought into Wright’s racist and anti-American sermonizing,
but simply put up with the venom spewed every week at Trinity United as a
political investment, both establishing his radical street credentials and
bolstering support among the members of Chicago’s black churches.
But there were plenty of markers in Obama’s own turns of
phrase to indicate that racial tranquility is not where we were headed:
“Typical white person” and a litany of divisive campaign sloganeering followed
(“bring a gun to a knife fight” and “get in their faces,” along with the stereotyping
of the white working class of Pennsylvania, who had failed to appreciate
Obama’s singular brilliance in the state’s Democratic primary).
Nothing much changed when Obama entered the Oval Office
(and why should it, when Obama won record majorities of minority voters in 2008
and would again in 2012?). Attorney General Eric Holder, who almost immediately
dropped a likely successful voter-intimidation prosecution against the New
Black Panther Party (a group to which the Dallas police assassin at one time claimed
affinity), set the new tone of the Obama Justice Department by referring to
African-Americans as “my people” and deriding Americans in general as “a nation
of cowards.”
“Punish our enemies” characterized Obama’s approach to
race and bloc voting. Each time an explosive racial confrontation appeared on
the national scene, Obama — always in his accustomed academic intonations — did
his best to exploit the issue. So the Skip Gates farce was leveraged into
commentary about police stereotyping and profiling on a national level. The
police officer in the Ferguson shooting was eventually exonerated by Obama’s
own Justice Department, but not before Obama had already exploited the shooting
for political advantage, as part of a larger false narrative of out-of-control
racist cops who recklessly shoot black suspects at inordinate rates to the
population (rather than in the context of their national incidence of contact
with police).
It mattered nothing that the signature line of Ferguson,
and the founding motto of Black Lives Matter — “Hands up, don’t shoot” — was
exposed as a myth by Eric Holder’s investigators. Right in the midst of the
ongoing Trayvon Martin shooting trial, the president of the United States, in
carrion fashion, weighed in by speculating whether the son he had never had
would have looked like young Martin — not merely risking prejudicing the case
(although the newly dubbed “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman was nevertheless
exonerated by a jury of his peers), but reminding the country that our racial
heritages are the basis of tribal resonance.
Black Lives Matter was founded on a separatist and
radical racialism. When an inept Bernie Sanders tried to suggest that “All
lives matter,” he was bullied into silence by activists who rushed the podium.
“Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” became a Black Lives Matter marching
slogan last summer in Minnesota — rhetoric amplifying the calls for “Dead Cops”
in an earlier New York City march that was in turn logically reified in Dallas
by the assassin who “dead copped” white policemen.
When Obama invited Black Lives Matter founders to the
White House in February, he praised them by asserting that they were “much
better organizers” than he had been at a comparable age, adding that he was
“confident that they are going to take America to new heights.” Prior Black
Lives Matter marching death chants to police should have been known to Obama at
the time.
Every problem has a resolution — but often not a good
one. In the case of widely publicized shootings of black suspects by police,
regardless of the landscapes involved, police already have proven less likely
to respond promptly to inner-city calls for help, rightly or wrongly convinced
that they either will be shot at by assassins, or will be forced to use force
to protect themselves in a manner that will end their careers, or will hesitate
and pay a lethal price for losing deterrence. They likewise assume that their
politically appointed high-profile superiors will not support them under media
and political pressures, and that society at large has no stomach for a candid
conversation — ranging from history to culture to public policy to economics —
about the dilemma of young black males, who constitute about 3 to 4 percent of
the general population, and are responsible for between 25 and 50 percent of
some categories of violent crime.
This spring Obama invited a series of rappers and
activists to the White House, whose careers and rhetoric were often violent and
divisive. Rapper Rick Ross — on bail pending trial on kidnapping and assault
charges — had his ankle bracelet go off at a White House ceremony. Black Lives
Matter and Ferguson activist Charles Wade abruptly declined his White House
invitation, apparently because he had been recently arrested for pimping and
human trafficking. Marquee rapper Kendrick Lamar’s Pimp a Butterfly album cover portrayed black men hoisting champagne
bottles and displaying hundred-dollar bills on the White House lawn, in
merriment over the corpse of a white judge with his eyes X’d out. Reality
mimicked art when Lamar (whose video sets include singing from a vandalized
police car) was invited to the White House — or perhaps when five fatally shot
policemen on the ground in Dallas superseded Lamar’s image of a prone and
eyeless dead judge. Obama, remember, has cited the police-hating Lamar (e.g.,
“And we hate Popo, wanna kill us dead in the street for sure, nigga”) as his
favorite rapper and the dead-judge album “as best album of the year.”
As the president has reminded us, words matter. So far in
2016 the shootings of police are up 44 percent over 2015. If celebrating the
image of a murdered judge is no impediment to an Oval Office visit and a
presidential endorsement, why would the more reckless activists see any real
social odium in escalating the hatred? What does one have to do to be
disqualified from a White House visit or earn the president’s disapproval? Be
under indictment for a felony? Commercialize a picture of a judge’s corpse?
That more police may have been targeted in Tennessee, Georgia, and Missouri
following the Dallas carnage was the logical result of more than a year of
contextualizing Black Lives Matter rhetoric and expressing pseudo-hip adulation
of purveyors of anti-police and anti-judicial venom — but always from a safe
distance. What does a Secret Service agent think when Lamar, who became a
multimillionaire from lyrics like “We hate Popo,” comes to visit the Oval
Office?
Obama predicates such no-consequences racial trafficking
on four astute assumptions: First, he believes that promoting racial identity,
and the more raw the better, is good politics — that it will solidify his new
Democratic coalition, energizing grievances to ensure record turnout and bloc
voting.
Second, he assumes that most of America is still locked
into an anachronistic 1960s dialectic of a white/black binary in the context of
continuing bitterness over the racism of Jim Crow — rather than the complex
reality of a 21st-century society of multiple races and ethnicities, well into
our sixth decade of affirmative action and racial compensation.
Third, Obama assumes that his Ivy League metrosexual and
teleprompted image, in wink-and-nod fashion, reassures white liberals that
while he flirts with and manipulates the uncouth rhetoric and imagery that the
cruder rappers or Rev. Wright routinely peddle, he could not possibly buy into
their full progam.
Fourth, Obama assumes that his own racial heritage
exempts his sloppy rhetoric and actions from the sort of accountability that
would doom a non-minority politician who had compiled a similar oeuvre of
tolerating racial incendiarism.
Yet when a society reaches a point at which the remedy —
honest dialogue and debate — is considered worse than the disease — racial
animosity — then chaos and disintegration are the prognoses.
Up to now, the war zones in Chicago and Philadelphia and
other inner cities that routinely experience abject killing each week have been
largely ignored by progressives, given the nature of black-on-black violence in
cities with strict gun-control laws, liberal governments, and ample
social-welfare programs. Yet it may be that these recent shootings in Dallas
and various other cities, rather than signaling a new dialogue, mark a strategy
of exporting gun violence to purported white purveyors of racism. If that
happens, then we are back to the 1960s — but worse. Read the online racist
comments posted on any major news agency’s accounts of a crime involving race
to sense the polarization that has intensified since 2008.
Meanwhile, abroad, the world looks not just at the
tearing apart of American society under Obama, but at that society’s collective
inability to even discuss the catalysts for either Islamic terrorism of the
Orlando and San Bernardino sort, or the recent racial violence. When this is
collated with seven years of failed reset with Russia, the Iranian deal, the
rise of ISIS, the implosion of the Middle East, and the new belligerency in
China and North Korea, we may be facing a final six months of a lame-duck
presidency the likes of which have never been seen in modern political history.
Perhaps Obama has been prescient after all about American
sins and the need for apologizing, contextualization, and reset. A 21st-century
society that celebrates separatism and violence and that pardons the venom of
Black Lives Matter and its more extreme manifestations, or that exempts Hillary
Clinton from all legal accountability, may simply not be able to exercise a
position of world moral authority after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment