By Ben Shapiro
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
The Claremont Institute, a West Coast Straussian
institution founded by Harry Jaffa, is philosophically dedicated to small
government and traditional values; many of its chief voices were strong
proponents for President Trump during the 2016 election. It’s that latter fact
that led to outsized focus on an incident that took place last week on an
Institute email listserv connecting alumni of the Institute (full disclosure:
I’m a former 2006 Publius Fellow at the Claremont Institute, though I’m not on
the listserv). Apparently, Darren Beattie, a speechwriter for Trump, was fired
after CNN reported that he spoke at a 2016 conference of the H. L. Mencken
Club; other speakers included Peter Brimelow, creator of the white-supremacist
site VDare.com. He then asked the listserv for help defending himself.
One of those who replied was alt-right uber-troll Charles
Johnson, a former Publius Fellow. Johnson wrote, “Beattie’s offense is that he
spoke at an event where — gasp! — there were white nationalists afoot! Heaven
forbid that some thinkers — like the American founders who favored our country
be majority white — think that the US of A should stay majority white! Perish
the thought. Can’t have that.”
Immediately, members of the list asked to be removed.
Within an hour, the Institute killed the listserv altogether. Politico’s Eliana Johnson reported on
the story within days.
The story prompted spasms of glee from the left-leaning
press. “Trump-loving think tank wracked with white nationalist controversy,”
chortled Jeet Heer, official village idiot of The New Republic. “The problem is so persistent that it can’t be
seen simply as fringe individuals trying trying [sic] to jump on the Trump bandwagon.” Nick Confessore of the New York Times tweeted, “Apparently the
Claremont Institute ran a listserv of conservative thought leaders that
included Charles Johnson.”
Claremont Institute, it turns out, had been a secret
repository for white nationalism for years. That
was the story. Not that a conservative group shut down a listserv to prohibit
the dissemination of white-nationalist nonsense. That the group had been
riddled through with white nationalism (never mind that Eliana Johnson, the
original reporter of the Politico article, was one of my fellow Publius Fellows
— the true representative of Claremont is Charles Johnson).
All of this is rather telling. It’s telling because, time
and again, mainstream institutions on the right are slandered as homes for
racism, sexism, and miscellaneous other bigotry, even when those institutions
work to root out such bigotry. Take, for example, National Review itself. William F. Buckley spent an enormous amount
of political capital with his own base — and with his own funders — when he
decided to throw the John Birchers out of the house. National Review took another hit with many of its fans when the
publication decided to throw out John Derbyshire in 2012. None of this stops
the Left from maligning National Review
as a home for right-wing evil, or from portraying nefarious characters like
Kevin Williamson as indicative of that evil.
Yet the Left almost never throws out thinkers for
ideological reasons. Leftist institutions will occasionally oust people who
openly promote violence or involve themselves in outright fabrication. But when
is the last time you saw a leftist outlet say of a leftist columnist, “That
view is simply outside the mainstream”? Open Communism is fine; pure identity
politics is fine. It’s not difficult to imagine a leftist listserv celebrating
Charles Johnson’s words with the races reversed: “Heaven forbid that some
thinkers . . . think that the US of A should become majority minority!” That
position is actually rather mainstream on the traditional Left. The same is
true with regard to hot-button issues such as abortion (Shout Yours Today!) and
the First Amendment (it’s being weaponized, so we must curb it!) and
anti-Semitism (see Sarsour, Linda). The Left doesn’t throw its radicals out. It
mainstreams them.
The institutional Right, however, spends an inordinate
amount of time self-policing. That’s a good thing. This isn’t a call to silence
people — Charles Johnson has his own outlets for his particular brand of bile.
Nobody is calling for government censorship of voices, nor should we. But it is
up to serious conservatives to decide with whom they associate.
One of the tragedies of the recent past is that the
Left’s refusal to acknowledge that self-policing has led too many on the right
to begin tolerating the intolerable — to begin making common cause with those
they should have thrown out of the tent long ago. That’s not entirely the fault
of the Left, of course: Good people should always attempt to disassociate from
evil, no matter whether others acknowledge such attempts. But the Left’s
refusal to acknowledge good-faith efforts on the part of conservatives is an
ongoing problem.
So too is the Left’s refusal to excise its own cancerous
voices. It is a reminder that when it comes to policing the boundaries of a
political movement, the modern-day conservative movement far outpaces the Left.
No comments:
Post a Comment