By Kevin D. Williamson
Thursday, January 17, 2019
And here I thought I was the only black man with white
privilege.
Areva Martin, a CNN “analyst” — whatever in hell that
means anno Domini 2019 — was in the
middle of a spirited exchange with the conservative talk-radio host David Webb
about racial preferences in hiring. Webb argued — as conservatives of many
different races argue! — that race should not be a factor in such decisions,
which should be based strictly on qualifications.
Martin, predictably, leaned on identity. “That’s a whole
’nother long conversation about white privilege,” she sniffed. “The things that
you have the privilege of doing that people of color don’t have the privilege
of.” Webb, sensing something amiss, asked: “How do I have white privilege?” Her
answer: Because he is a “white male.”
Half right.
(Disclosure: I don’t think I’ve ever met Mr. Webb, but I
did guest-host his radio show a few times a couple of years ago. They stopped
asking me to do that after I made fun of his awful bumper music. People are
touchy.)
Somehow, we as a culture have managed to forget that ad hominem is a rhetorical fallacy. Which is to say: Relying on the
ad hominem mode of argument means
that you are stupid, if not generally and categorically stupid then
limited-purpose stupid in the context of the debate at hand.
Dennis Prager, relating the story above, mentions that he
was denounced — as he must be denounced! — before a college campus speech as a
racist, sexist, homophobe, and . . . anti-Semite. Prager is Jewish. He has made
opposing anti-Semitism a fundamental part of his public career. The reaction to
that news was predictable: “Oops. Well, he’s still a racist, sexist, homophobe
. . .”
I’ve heard Charles C. W. Cooke dismissed as a
fundamentalist Christian (he’s an atheist) and Guy Benson denounced as a
homophobe (he’s gay). I have even heard myself denounced as a sellout
self-hating black man (I’m white). We have been the beneficiaries of Voltaire’s
prayer: “I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.”
But here’s a question: What if they were right? Cooke’s
views on abortion or the First Amendment are what they are, and they either
have merit or they do not, irrespective of his religious views. David Webb and
I have the same views on many things, I imagine. He’s black. I’m white.
Presumably, an erroneous opinion bouncing around in my head would be equally
erroneous bouncing around in his head, just as a useful observation coming out
of my mouth would be an equally useful observation coming out of his.
Not if you are a progressive, apparently. For the Left,
public discourse is Lord of the Flies,
and victimhood is the conch — that is how they believe we should decide who
gets to speak. That’s what the nonsensical business about “intersectionality”
is all about. It is at its heart very little more than a reconstitution of old,
dumb, primitive, superstitious ideas in the same genus as racism and
nationalism, i.e. the belief that certain demographic markers of questionable
real-world relevance are supernaturally cementitious determinants of moral
meaning. The ugliness and crudity of that view are easy enough to ascertain.
There are no political leaders, police officers, journalists, or college
professors — only white political leaders, black police officers, gay journalists,
disabled college professors, etc. No sensible person believes that we live in a
perfectly colorblind society — but it does not follow from that that the most
important thing about David Webb is his race. He made the same argument when
Areva Martin thought he was white that he would have made if she had known he
was black. David Webb is not the variable in that equation.
But that kind of crudeness is attractive if your
rhetorical strategy is to substitute indictment
for argument. “I think you have this one wrong, Areva Martin.” “Who are you to
say, white man?” Or: “I think the president screwed up the whole wall thing.”
“Yeah, well, you’re a #NeverTrumper, so, nanny-nanny-boo-boo.” There’s really
nowhere for the conversation to go from there — and that is the point.
But if you insist on being an intellectually backward and
morally illiterate racial essentialist, at least do your homework.
No comments:
Post a Comment