By Kevin D. Williamson
Thursday, January 12, 2017
In a big, complex society such as ours, the major
features of public life have two main components: There are formal legal
arrangements and there are institutions, and the former is not very useful
without the latter — that means, for instance, that it isn’t enough to have the
First Amendment, you have to have the New
York Times, too, or at least something doing the job of the New York Times, which the New York Times itself often fails to do.
President Barack Obama, in his farewell address,
struggled clumsily toward that as he shared his concerns that too much Fox News
and too many fever-dream Facebook memes are undermining our “common baseline of
fact.” He is a lawyer and a politician and, in spite of his reputation, not an
especially thoughtful man, so it is unsurprising that he could not quite put
his finger on what he was trying to say. Have no fear: It was his last address
as president, but I would bet a testicle that he’ll average more speeches per
annum in retirement than he did even as a logorrheic president of these United
States.
If President Obama does not understand why our
institutions and the common ground they once represented are in a shambles, he
need not look very far for an explanation: He is a man of the Left, and the
Left corrupts every institution it touches: the news media, the educational and
academic institutions, the cultural institutions, professional organizations,
government bureaucracies, everything from National
Geographic to the English department at the University of Texas. This is
not a case of “both sides do it” or an instance of a conservative polemicist
simply fitting his political opponents for black hats. If you want to
understand why Americans have so little faith in institutions that were once
granite pillars of respectability, you must understand the Left’s coopting of
them.
Consider the case of the New York Times. Hating the self-proclaimed newspaper of record is a
great conservative preoccupation (some time back, I oversaw a blog here more or
less dedicated to that). But it was not always the case that it was discounted,
even by the most gimlet-eyed of conservatives. No doubt that William F. Buckley
Jr. found much in the Times to annoy
and dismay him, but he also read it every day and cared about what was in it.
If you go back and read WFB’s syndicated column, you will find evidence that it
was written by a dedicated reader of the Times.
By the 1990s, conservatives’ attitude toward the paper had changed dramatically.
Rush Limbaugh used to describe his reaction to seeing something noteworthy in
the Times thus: “That’s interesting!
I wonder if it’s true?”
Of course the Times
has long had a bias problem, dating at least back to the infamous reporting of
Walter Duranty, who was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for managing to tour the
Soviet Union without seeing any sign of starvation, misery, or oppression. But
a healthy institution can have a great many defects before it becomes defective
categorically, and, over the years, various kinds of left-ish activism seeped
into the Times, on practically every
page from sports to the book review. The bias of the Times and of the other major media was not, contra the usual
conservative criticism, strictly left-wing. To a significant degree, it was
something worse: ordinary partisanship. For most of the decades between the end
of World War II and the watershed Republican victories of 1994 and after,
Democrats simply ran Washington. If you were close to power — reporters must
necessarily be close to power, and many of them fall into the understandable
vice of adoring it — you were close to Democrats.
That partisan instinct was and is deeply ingrained in the
mainstream media. In his farewell address, President Obama boasted of achieving
“marriage equality” for homosexuals, having seemingly forgotten that he ran for
president as a candidate opposed to gay marriage. (Hillary Rodham Clinton was
opposed as well in 2008.) That Obama the candidate and Obama the president both
were given an indulgence on this question from the mainstream media is not a
result of their trying to carve out room for disagreement on gay marriage —
once Obama and Mrs. Clinton evolved on that issue, dissent became rank bigotry
— but was and is simply a vulgar and craven act of partisan self-defense.
Media bias made Rush Limbaugh’s career, giving him more
than enough material for three hours a day. Media bias made Fox News, which
finds itself in the odd position of being the most popular cable news network
while programming a great deal of material about the defects of the media.
Because most of the local newspapers that we grew up reading in the
pre-Internet era did not have Washington bureaus or foreign correspondents,
even those of us who grew up in very conservative areas were treated to a great
deal of increasingly obvious and contemptible bias thanks to the Associated
Press and other news services. We learned not to trust them, and, as technology
began providing us with a rich menu of alternatives, our distrust grew into
something like contempt.
But here is the thing: Rush Limbaugh and Fox News did not
convince Americans to distrust the New
York Times and Dan Rather. The Times
and Rather saw to that themselves — talk radio, Fox News, and right-wing Web
journals are the result of that alienation, not the cause of it.
Institutions matter. As President Obama intuited, we lost
something when we lost a common understanding that the news is the news, and
that while the New York Times and the
Wall Street Journal might not
necessarily see the world the same way, we ought not dismiss a claim of fact
simply because of the flag under which it was published.
The American Left has long understood the importance of
institutions, thus its embarkation some decades ago on its “Long March” through
them. It has been remarkably successful: It is very difficult to be an open
conservative while seeking a position as, say, a professor of liberal arts. A
would-be history professor active in pro-life causes faces all manner of
retribution and exclusion that a would-be history professor active in
pro-choice causes does not. The public-school bureaucracies and the unions affiliated
with them are organs of the Democratic party. The IRS has been, under Barack
Obama’s watch, converted into an instrument of politics deployed against
conservative organizations, as have other federal agencies. Did Barack Obama
organize this or consent to it? Maybe, maybe not. But he and his administration
saw to it that those who were commandeering these institutions for political
purposes were sheltered from the consequences of doing so. Lois Lerner is not
in prison, but enjoying a comfortable federal pension.
So prevalent is this bias — this abuse of power — that
conservative organizations that help students connect with scholarships and
internships routinely advise them to omit those associations from their CVs if
they are seeking work in academia or the media. This is almost exclusively
one-sided.
In his final presidential speech, Obama proposed
redrawing congressional districts to make them less partisan. Who in his right
mind would trust the people who weaponized the IRS — and who are at this very
moment using prosecutors’ offices across the country to try to criminalize
global-warming dissent — to do that in a fair and honest way? He proposed new
campaign-finance rules that would purportedly reduce the role of money in
politics, but who in his right mind would trust him and his colleagues — Lois
Lerner, Loretta Lynch, Harry Reid — to oversee such regulations?
Some years ago, I worked at the Institute for Humane
Studies, a classical-liberal organization founded in the 1940s by a Cornell
professor who had been told that he could not assign his students readings from
the economist F. A. Hayek because they were “reactionary.” (Hayek would later
win the Nobel prize in economics.) The superiority of central planning, he was
told, was settled science, and he was a denier. The consensus was well
established, it was unalterable, and it was intellectually irresponsible to
question it. Conservative and libertarian counter-institutions ranging from
this magazine to the American Enterprise Institute were founded for similar
reasons: because the Left had occupied and corrupted the institutions that
ought to be doing the intellectual work necessary to a free, liberal,
democratic, self-governing republic.
T. S. Eliot once remarked that he was surprised by how much
his American students had read but thought that they might be better off if
they had read fewer books but had read the same ones. A shared body of
knowledge and understanding is indeed desirable, and President Obama is right
to lament the death of the institutions that once sustained it.
A more thoughtful man might see the metaphorical blood on
his hands.
No comments:
Post a Comment