By Michael Brendan Dougherty
Wednesday, November 01, 2017
For conservatives who pay attention, the slippery slope
isn’t a logical fallacy, but a way of life. In our gloomy predictions, we
regularly understate how far society will begin kicking us down the slope once
we start sliding. It would’ve been unthinkable for even the most pessimistic
anti-divorce activist of half a century ago to predict that the majority of
American children would be born illegitimately within a few decades.
Anti-euthanasia activists never dared suggest that the Dutch would be so
depraved as to begin drugging children into their graves merely because they
reported depression. When Vermont was considering legislation providing for
civil unions for same-sex couples, not even the sweatiest, most paranoid
snake-handler imagined that florists would be financially ruined by the government
for refusing to serve customers whose nuptials violated their religious
scruples. Yet here we are.
And now, a few weeks after conservatives were laughed at
for predicting that the desire to take down Confederate memorials would
eventually turn into the desire to take down memorials to the Founding Fathers,
it has happened again. The leaders of Christ Church, an Episcopal congregation
in Alexandria, Va., have decided to remove two plaques honoring previous Robert
E. Lee and George Washington, who both once worshiped there.
It’s important not to exaggerate this story. This is just
one incident in a very notable place. Though it is not yet a wave, I predict
that it is a sign of what is to come. Many progressive voices would surely
object that while some radicals want to tear down the Founders, liberals have
of late eloquently articulated a case for taking down Confederate statues that
does not logically end in tearing down memorials to Jefferson and Washington.
The argument goes like this: We’re not interested in getting rid of statues of
racists just because they are racist. Jefferson Davis, Nathan Bedford Forrest,
and General Robert E. Lee are memorialized only
because of their efforts on behalf of the Confederate cause. The Confederate
cause was defined exclusively by the preservation and expansion of chattel
slavery. It was a treasonous cause, and the memorials were erected to reinforce
the renewed power and rhetoric of white supremacy in the South after it was
defeated.
Jamelle Bouie of Slate
has given this view elegant expression. “Yes, Jefferson was a slaveholder,
Washington was a slaveholder,” he said in a recent podcast. “But the reason we
memorialize them is not because of their slaveholding. We memorialize them
because one wrote the Declaration of Independence, and one led the Continental
Armies and basically formed the model for the presidency.” He added, for
emphasis, that, “these [Confederate] statues were explicitly raised as symbols
of Jim Crow and of white supremacy. So Trump’s comparison [of Confederate
memorials to monuments to Washington and Jefferson] there is dumb. It doesn’t
really even make any sense. And the notion that there’s some slippery slope is
dumb.”
All the distinctions Bouie and others raise are sound,
but they are unlikely to stop the slide down the slippery slope, which starts
when the principle established in one political controversy has nothing to
impede its progressive application to other cases — or when the motivations for
a desired political change outlive the change itself and find new avenues of
expression.
I don’t think it is controversial to speculate that those
wanting to tear down Confederate memorials do so because they oppose white
supremacy. And the motivation that anti-racism provides them will outlive the
public symbols honoring the Confederacy, energizing the next cause The
potential honorific gains for anti-racists will also remain after the brazen
Rebs are gone. The desire to see white supremacy toppled in the present will
motivate anti-racists to expose its influence throughout American history. And
the fact that the Founders gave America its long-lived institutions — its
Constitution, its presidency, its courts — will no longer be seen as a reason
to retain their monuments, but as the primary reason for tearing them down.
I do not offer this argument as an indictment of anyone’s
motivations. I’m not accusing anyone of hiding the ball, or of deliberately
misleading others, or even themselves. I’m not even arguing against the removal
of Confederate statues. I am merely offering a prediction based on the current
placement of pieces on the chess board, the temperament of the players, and the
known history of their previous games. But I do think America will lose
something important when the Founders are judged too problematic to honor, even
if by that point most Americans will judge the losses minor and the gains to be
had irresistible.
* * *
Political battle creates archetypal heroes and villains.
And once the villainy of the latter is established, why shouldn’t they lose
even more ground? Liberals should be easy to persuade on this point, because
the more extreme among them — those doing the persuading — will be using
arguments against the Founders that have the exact same shape as the arguments
against the Confederates.
Right now, most liberals cannot quite envision the
toppling of the Jefferson Memorial on account of Jefferson’s white-supremacist
views. It seems so unthinkable that they genuinely don’t allow themselves to
contemplate it, much less desire it. And so they are quite reassuring when they
say they aren’t leading us down the slope. But they are, even if they don’t
know it.
Twenty years ago, the strength of the Religious Right was
such that few then fighting what they saw as patriarchal attitudes and
homophobia could imagine Catholic hospitals would one day be sued to provide
abortions, and Evangelical colleges sued into providing dorms for same-sex
couples. But once feminism and sexual liberation made certain gains, the next
battle against the same enemy became obvious. Suddenly, the only people who saw
utility in religious liberty were these Catholics and Evangelicals, who now
seemed to their opponents as nothing other than misogynists and homophobes. And
thus religious liberty, a liberal value and achievement, died and became doomed
to a second ghostly life as a conservative preoccupation, one that makes both
the conservative and the preoccupation seem more suspicious by association.
Precisely because conservatives — the paradigmatic enemy
who once argued on behalf of Lee — will be the group trying to save the memory
of Thomas Jefferson by calling people to Martin Luther King Jr.’s understanding
of our founding documents as a “promissory note,” liberals will be more and
more tempted by an alternative, more radical understanding of those documents.
And they will have another very important motivation beyond ideological
tribalism: They will be seeking what they view as justice in the present.
* * *
I have the blessing and curse of being a dual national. I
think it can be easier to see how present concerns motivate our understanding
of the national past when you look at my other country, Ireland. I watched with
interest as the Irish celebrated the centennial of the Easter Rising in 2016.
The legacy of the 1916 rebels has been subject to heated debate ever since they
fired the first shot at the gates of Dublin Castle. Starting in the 1970s,
there was much discussion among historians and the Irish lettered class over
how the ideological baggage of the Easter Rising contributed to the peculiar
bloodiness of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The rebels of 1916 embraced
their certain defeat and death, making martyrdom a proof of manhood and a means
of keeping alive an Irish tradition of anti-British resistance, even when their
present campaign was futile and therefore failed one of the tests of a just
war: that it have a reasonable chance of success. Did not the Easter rebels
leave a residue in Irish nationalism that bid the Provisional IRA to continue
its mayhem even in a hopeless cause, even if it destroyed any chance of social
peace in Ulster? The present concerns overwhelmed almost all other
understandings of the act that had previously been credited with achieving
Ireland’s first political independence since at least the rise of the Tudors.
But now, almost 20 years after the Good Friday Agreement,
the legacy of the Rising is reinterpreted in an Ireland where the lettered
class is defined by its current ambition to shake off the last vestiges of what
it demeans as “Holy Catholic Ireland,” the country whose education system and
socially conservative laws speak to the preeminence of the Church. Two years
ago, that meant legalizing same-sex marriage. Next year, there will be a push
to legalize abortion. And so, there was the odd spectacle of the Irish Times religion reporter, Patsy
McGarry, ringing in the 2016 with an editorial suggesting that Rising leaders
Patrick Pearse and James Connolly were poisonous Catholic sectarians. McGarry
suggested they could only have had one motivation for receiving Holy Communion before
their execution by the British: to commit to history a deed of political
propaganda on behalf of Catholic supremacy. That they might have believed it
good for their souls and necessary for salvation never enters McGarry’s mind.
And McGarry is so committed to an anti-Catholic revisionism he mangles the
details of history, seeming unaware that the Apostle’s Creed was common to all
Ireland’s Christian denominations. Again, the present ambition to continue
humbling the Church overwhelms alternative understandings of the Irish past.
The current climate of anti-Catholicism in Ireland is
generational and likely to exhaust itself in the cause for legal abortion and
the secularization of the best nominally Catholic schools in Dublin. The
climate is amenable to change; religions often find ways to revive themselves,
and the spiritual vacuum in Ireland is real, waiting to be filled.
In America, the picture is quite different. Generations
of mass immigration all but guarantee that the future of our politics will
almost certainly be more and more focused on achieving the equitable
distribution of economic, institutional, and honorific resources in an
ever-more-racially-diverse society, thereby ensuring social peace. Because I
believe that human nature cannot be perfected, and that human ambition is very
difficult to restrain, I doubt any government or society is capable of creating
a distribution of resources that is fair and disinterested and perceived by
everyone as such. Yet it is precisely this need to create harmony in an
increasingly diverse society that prompted Christ Church to ditch George
Washington. They explained in their statement that the plaques “create a
distraction in our worship space and may create an obstacle to our identity as
a welcoming church and an impediment to our growth and to full community with
our neighbors.”
And so, if white supremacy will be named as the perennial
problem of American life going forward, the Founders must eventually fall.
* * *
I realized that this would be inevitable once I read Adam
Serwer’s intelligent dissection of the myth of General Robert E. Lee. Serwer
takes on what he calls “a 150-year-old propaganda campaign designed to erase
slavery as the cause of the war and whitewash the Confederate cause as a noble
one.” He acknowledges that while some white supremacists honor Lee for his
racism, many others wish to honor what they imagine to be his virtues, and says
he is trying to alert the latter folks to the ugly truth. He corrects those who
believe Lee was a military genius by calling out the fatal “decision to fight a
conventional war against the more densely populated and industrialized North.”
He cautions those who say that Lee became a man of peace, noting that after the
war, “To the extent that Lee believed in reconciliation, it was between white
people, and only on the precondition that black people would be denied
political power.” He concludes:
To describe [Lee] as an American hero
requires ignoring the immense suffering for which he was personally
responsible, both on and off the battlefield. It requires ignoring his
participation in the industry of human bondage, his betrayal of his country in
defense of that institution, the battlefields scattered with the lifeless
bodies of men who followed his orders and those they killed, his hostility
toward the rights of the freedmen and his indifference to his own students
waging a campaign of terror against the newly emancipated. It requires reducing
the sum of human virtue to a sense of decorum and the ability to convey
gravitas in a gray uniform.
Liberal writers today say that we honor Jefferson and
Washington for the noble parts of their legacy, just as Lost Cause devotees
once said they honor the honorable facets of Lee’s life. But in fact, it is
probably easier to criticize the Founders as white supremacists than it is to
fault Lee’s military acumen, his physical bravery, or several other of the
virtues routinely ascribed to him. Lee and the Confederates offered more praise
of slavery and fewer ambivalent notes about it. But the bill of indictment I
expect to be aimed at the Founders harmonizes with the one Serwer aims at Lee.
In fact, it is so harmonious that I believe we can almost hum it as a
counter-melody already.
Previously, civil-rights activists such as King
reconciled white America’s devotion to the nation’s founding and their own
ambition to living as equals under the law by casting the Declaration and other
artifacts of the Founding as a “promissory note” whose liberties need to be
justly extended to all human beings in America. And many today say that we can
honor the Founders because, unlike the the Confederates, the principles they
enshrined in our Founding documents could be used against the injustice of
slavery and white supremacy.
It is my contention that this way of honoring the
Founders will soon begin to seem dishonest to liberals. It will be seen as a
concession to a recalcitrant prejudice and a political reality that is rapidly
disappearing, the same way civil unions for same-sex couples are now seen.
It is easy to imagine a writer who grew up reading
Ta-Nehisi Coates on “the First White President” looking back at Bouie’s
assertion that we have statues to Jefferson on account of his authorship of the
Declaration of Independence with a jaundiced eye. That future man of letters
will observe that the Declaration’s invocations of liberty and its pretensions
of universalism were merely Whig propaganda against a King. He will assert that
Jefferson did not actually believe that all men were so endowed by their
creator. He will hasten to add that as America achieved the political
sovereignty, Jefferson became more convinced of white supremacy, more secure in
the view that white liberty could be guaranteed only through black bondage.
Many reading this argument will conclude that by raising statues to Jefferson
we are crediting him only for his
hypocrisy, a privilege only white racists and slavers get in America. They
will conclude, in other words, that America has spent centuries sanctifying its
foundational hypocrisy. Land of the Free, home of the enslaved.
Seen from this vantage, the statues and the faces on
federal coins and the convenient February holidays are part of a centuries-old
campaign to whitewash the Revolutionary cause as a noble one. Why should we
credit the Founders with their ideals of human liberty and their constitutional
genius when the system of government they bequeathed was so uniquely resistant
to the emancipation of slaves that the “American exceptionalism” of the 19th
century could be said to reside in the fact that America was the only Western
nation where abolition required a cataclysmic civil war?
Why raise statues to Washington for his leadership of the
Continental armies when those armies were partly motivated to destroy the
British as vengeance for emancipating America’s slaves? Scores of thousands of
slaves ran to the British army seeking emancipation, including many owned by
George Washington. This fact incensed the America Revolutionaries. Tom Paine
decried the British as “that barbarous and hellish power which hath stirred up
the Indians and Negroes to destroy us.”
This hypocrisy was not lost on all observers. Samuel
Johnson’s assessment of the American cause can be repurposed by those who would
tear down Jefferson and Washington: “We are told, that the subjection of
Americans may tend to the diminution of our own liberties; an event, which none
but very perspicacious politicians are able to foresee” Johnson wrote, “If
slavery be thus fatally contagious, how is it that we hear the loudest yelps
for liberty among the drivers of negroes?”
Forget the promissory note, they may say — only
right-wingers talk about that any more. We ran away from Washington in the
1770s, and we’ve been running from him and what he created ever since.
Everything that has been good for racial peace in this country has involved
running away from the Founders.
I think it will seem natural that Americans, first on the
far left, then at the more respectable liberal journals will come to the same
conclusion about the Founders as Serwer does about Lee.
Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the great themes of American
politics will change before that can happen. Perhaps China or some other power
will emerge as an empire that threatens our subjugation, and the Founders’
desire for sovereignty, independence, and republicanism will seem relevant and
ennobling of American life again. Perhaps unforeseen changes to society and
technology will so atomize us that racial divides in politics no longer exist
on account of factional cohesion itself becoming impossible.
But I doubt it. The pieces on the board are where they
are, and the logic of the game requires that some of them will fall, even if
the players cannot yet anticipate it. All that is required is for the game to
continue on its current course.
No comments:
Post a Comment