By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, November 27, 2016
The New York Times,
like Walt Whitman, contains multitudes and necessarily contradicts itself.
In the Sunday edition there is an intelligent essay by
Mark Lilla titled “The End of Identity Liberalism.” In the Times magazine is an essay by Alexander Fury asking “Can a Corset
Be Feminist?”
Lilla argues that the tiresomely omphaloskeptic identity
politics of the contemporary Left is counterproductive, standing in the way of
a genuine liberalism of principle and cosmopolitan broad-mindedness. “How
often, for example, the laziest story in American journalism — about the ‘first
X to do Y’ — is told and retold. Fascination with the identity drama has even
affected foreign reporting, which is in distressingly short supply. However
interesting it may be to read, say, about the fate of transgender people in
Egypt, it contributes nothing to educating Americans about the powerful
political and religious currents that will determine Egypt’s future, and
indirectly, our own. No major news outlet in Europe would think of adopting
such a focus.”
If we were feeling generous, we could overlook the fact
that such sterling progressives as Jonathan Chait began to question the value
of identity politics right around the time that “Shut up, white man!” came to be accepted as an all-purpose
response to columns by Jonathan Chait. Lilla’s understandably Europhilic column
does not grapple with the demographic facts — that Switzerland is full of Swiss
people and Mississippi isn’t — but his prescription for liberal reform is the
right one, one that certainly would please conservatives even if it made no
impression on the Left, which does not have very many liberals anymore. A
liberal education system, Lilla writes, would acquaint students with the
structures and dynamics of American government and prepare them for the duties
of citizenship. A liberal press would take more than an “anthropological
interest in the angry white male” and “would begin educating itself about parts
of the country that have been ignored, and about what matters there, especially
religion.” (Learning the elementary facts about firearms would be something,
too.)
The most interesting and insightful part of Lilla’s essay
is his argument that the right-leaning rural and small-town Americans are not
in fact revolting against the fact of American diversity but against the
“omnipresent rhetoric of identity, which is what they mean by ‘political
correctness.’” That is exactly right.
He ends with a salute to Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four
Freedoms,” without getting into the messy fact that the Democratic party has
declared open war on two of them — freedom of speech and freedom of worship —
with Harry Reid’s Senate caucus having gone so far as to vote for repealing to
the First Amendment.
How different is Alexander Fury’s essay on the corset, by
comparison. Fury’s piece is the usual exercise in progressive moral panic: How
should the right sort of people feel about corsets? (Kale? Juice cleanses?
Whole Foods? Tesla automobiles?) The corset, Fury says, is not just another
article of clothing, and one can feel a dreadful premonition of the abuse of
the word “literally” before Fury gets around to writing it: “As opposed to
merely transforming our perceptions of the figure, as with the padding and
extensions of 18th-century pannier skirts, or the 19th-century bustle, the
corset acted — and still acts — directly on the form, kneading and shifting
flesh to literally carve out a new body for its wearer, no situps required.” We
are all good liberals here, but I am confident that literally carving the human body remains a crime, even in New York.
Fury’s version of things is the opposite of Lilla’s
tolerant liberalism: To be the right sort of people, we must be feminists, and
to be feminists, we must have opinions on . . . everything, and assign to the
entirety of the universe moral gradations based upon the feminist position that
all of the right sort of people must assume. Fury ultimately comes down as a
corset libertarian: “A woman wearing a corset today is a symbol of empowerment,
of sexual freedom, of control. She’s the one holding the laces, the one
constructing her own femininity.” But the problem is less the answer than the
question, and the question-begging — the identification of feminism with virtue
and the hunt for heresy.
Lilla’s plea is probably doomed to fall upon deaf ears — or
ears that are at the very least not listening. There is almost nothing that
people enjoy so much as talking about themselves and all of the splendid ways
in which they and their experiences are utterly unique, and it is very
difficult to listen to others while talking about one’s self. Sir Richard
Francis Burton wasn’t entirely wrong to conclude that “man never worshipped
anything but himself.”
But if progressives will not heed principle, then maybe
they will heed arithmetic. Make identity politics the main operational model in
a country that is two-thirds white and 50 percent or so male, and what do you
expect?
President-elect Trump might have some thoughts on that.
No comments:
Post a Comment