Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Wall of Women



By Tim Cavanaugh
Tuesday, December 02, 2014

Without having been convicted of or even charged with any crime, Bill Cosby this autumn became the subject of some of the most intense public vituperation in recent memory. Many tour dates have been called off; his comeback NBC sitcom and a scheduled Netflix standup special have been canceled; he has been disinvited from countless guest appearances. The popular and enduring entertainer is accused by a multitude of people, whose apparent ethical characters are varied but whose stories are strikingly similar, of drugging and sexually assaulting many women in incidents dating from 1966 through 2004. New accusers continue to emerge — including a second-hand claimant in Salon who says a friend’s consensual relationship with Cosby in the 1980s included at least one incident of non-consensual drugging and rape. “I had known the truth since that memorable night in 1981,” author and revenge porn activist Charlotte Laws writes of a friendly reunion with Cosby in 2004, shortly after a Temple University women’s basketball program director had publicly accused Cosby of sexual assault. “Bill had drugged my close friend, whom I will call Sandy, and then had sex with her.”

Laws is not the only Cosby accuser who discovered righteousness years after the fact. New York Times columnist David Carr beats his own breast and the breasts of others in demanding “What took so long?” Cosby biographer Mark Whitaker last week cleansed his own error in ignoring the longstanding rape allegations through the sincerest form of penance: a tweeted apology. In the New York Daily News, Frank Scotti, a 90-year-old former facilities manager at NBC, shared self-incriminating stories of having delivered hush payments to women and stood guard during Cosby’s closed-door encounters. In a separate article in the Daily News, an unnamed “stunned source” at David Letterman’s Late Show says that prior to Cosby appearances the show’s young female staffers “all had to gather around in the green room backstage and sit down and watch him eat curry” — an allegation that somehow seems even creepier if “eat curry” is not assumed to be a euphemism for an unspeakable sex act. In late November the Washington Post devoted the upper front page of a Sunday edition to a five-page narrative covering decades of allegations against the star. Colleges have severed longstanding connections with Cosby, culminating Monday with Temple University, where he had been a trustee for more than 30 years.

But the most striking feature of the Cosby pile-on is that it was brought on by almost nothing. The basic shape of the charges has been widely available for nearly ten years, having received extensive coverage in print and electronic media in 2005 and 2006. This season’s feeding frenzy appears to have been sparked by some offhand comments made during a routine by Hannibal Buress, a New York comedian so far below Cosby’s level of stardom that even his fans mix him up with similarly named former Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress.

The seemingly random timing of Operation Just Cos raises a question: Who’s next?

Many other prominent men have until now lived down plausible accusations of sexual misconduct. One of them is Bill Clinton, a former president of the United States and potential future First Spouse, among whose many proved and unproved sexcapades is an accusation that he raped and beat an Arkansas woman when he was the Razorback State’s attorney general. Another is the late senator Daniel Inouye (D., Hawaii), who was repeatedly accused of sexual harassment before and after his death in 2012. Although the post-Cosby dragnet has so far focused on supposedly powerful and influential entertainers, government officials have actual power, of a kind unknown to any comedian or rapper.

The kind of career-ending unrest Cosby is experiencing in his twilight years could happen to many other men — and it is not at all clear how or why the next uprising will happen. Why did the accusations against Cosby, by nearly 20 women, lay quiet for many years — so quiet that they don’t even appear in Whitaker’s brand-new Simon & Schuster biography of the performer — only to take by storm a country that once considered Cosby our collective dad? Why hasn’t the same thing happened to R. Kelly, or Kobe Bryant, or Woody Allen? Why has Bill Clinton never experienced sex-scandal reflux?

“I don’t know if there’s any excuse other than lazy journalism,” rock reporter Jim DeRogatis tells National Review Online. “When something is public record, especially in terms of lawsuits where accusations are laid out, reporters can report on that. They have a responsibility to report on it.” DeRogatis has spent many years reporting on sexual assault charges against R. Kelly, a singer whose career continues to flourish despite multiple accusations of statutory rape and other offenses, some of them backed up by video evidence. DeRogatis contrasts the supine behavior of U.S. media with the recent flap over former CBC personality Jian Ghomeshi, who has been accused by multiple women of violent abuse involving a stuffed animal nicknamed “Big Ears Teddy.”

“Because Canada has such restrictive libel laws, the Toronto Star was reluctant to go to press with the story they had,” he says. “But Ghomeshi got wind of the story; he hired a crisis consultant and he posted a 3,000-word rant about it on Facebook. It was only after he opened that can of worms that the Star went ahead with the story, because he had opened the floodgates himself. We in the United States are on much firmer ground. We have to be fair and objective and get the other side, but we are not nearly as restricted in what we can report. And as far as getting the other side in these cases: Cosby refuses to say a word, and Kelly never refuted a word I wrote.”

DeRogatis struggles to explain the particular timing of the Cosby blowup. “The thing with the Cosby story is that it’s so at odds with the public image he has projected,” he says. “And the charges against Woody Allen are also at odds with the image Woody Allen projects, unless you watch Manhattan. If you watch Manhattan [in which Allen's character falls in love with a very young Mariel Hemingway] you say ‘Oh, yeah!’ But the charges against R. Kelly are not at all at odds with the image he projected. And then again, look at Michael Jackson: To this day, there are people who just don’t want to believe.”

Some Cosby defenders have suggested the timing of the new dustup is, in some undefined way, suspect. But the only evidence for this claim seems to be that Cosby was poised for a career comeback of sorts, with new TV efforts, a glowing biography and a full schedule of high-profile media bookings. Cosby, however, has rarely been out of the spotlight since the 1970s, and he has had other surges since Temple’s Andrea Constand accused him of drugging and sexually assualting her in 2004. In 2008, highly praised writer Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote a long Cosby profile in The Atlantic, while the editors of the Washington Monthly waggishly suggested Cosby for president. The New York Times in those heady days described Cosby as a precursor to presidential candidate Barack Obama, a thread that Whitaker pulls to absurd lengths in his new book. The 2008 wave of Cosmania would have been particularly ripe for the counternarrative, because Cosby was making headlines mostly for his “call-outs” to the black community: socially conservative lectures in support of personal responsibility and family values.

To the claim that Cosby is getting slammed because he was resurgent, DeRogatis counters that Kelly continues to thrive nearly 15 years after his accusers began to come forward. His marriage to the underage Aaliyah was “treated as a Romeo & Juliet love story” in a recent Lifetime biopic, DeRogatis notes, and Kelly got rave reviews for headlining the Pitchfork Music Festival, the Bonnaroo festival and Coachella in 2013.

“Pitchfork stands for green; for voter registration; for liberal, wealthy, politically correct kids,” DeRogatis tells NRO. “And R. Kelly is now perceived as having camp or shtick or ‘mandingo’ appeal. So you have these 25- or 30-year-old ‘filmmakers’ or ‘comic-book artists’ but actually baristas — bearded hipsters celebrating R. Kelly as hipster camp. He’s faded somewhat in the black community. But he’s the big shot of the Whole Foods-shopping hipoisie.”

Bill Clinton’s sole sexual indiscretion that has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt was an extramarital affair with a college-age White House staffer. In 1999, the president was acquitted in the Senate of related perjury and obstruction charges, with nine Republicans joining the president’s Democrats to vote not guilty on one or both counts. But the fact of his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky is not disputable, nor is a degree in women’s studies required to spot the unequal power dynamic between the president of the United States and his 22-year-old gofer. Yet at the time, Women’s Media Center co-founder Gloria Steinem scoffed at the story, scolding the news media for an “obsession with sex qua sex” that is “offensive to some, titillating to many and beside the point to almost everybody,” and even coquettishly suggesting, “Perhaps we have a responsibility to make it okay for politicians to tell the truth.”

Democrats were even harder on another Clinton accuser — one who, of all the alleged victims of all the men mentioned above, had the most compelling reason to wait years before coming forward: The man she claims raped her and gave her a black eye in a Little Rock hotel room in 1978 was then the top law-enforcement officer in a state that has never been a national model of ethical government (though it has improved since the Clintons left it). When NRO caught up with Juanita Broaddrick, she was reluctant to speak any further about her history with Bill Clinton — which included direct exposure to the Clinton White House’s crisis management apparatus. But she holds to two points: that Bill Clinton raped her and that she is still stung by the public opprobrium she endured after coming forward.

Candice E. Jackson interviewed Broaddrick and other Clinton accusers for her 2005 book Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine. She takes aim at one consistent feature of the recent Cosby coverage, which involves claims stretching back to the mid Sixties: an assumption that American culture until about ten years ago had a practically stone-age mentality about gender relations.

“I think an easy answer that only has a grain of truth to it is that in the last 15-plus years our culture has made some improvements in recognizing and validating women who report unwanted sexual advances by powerful men,” Jackson tells National Review Online. “It’s partly true: Our culture has made some progress. But the women who were voluntarily and involuntarily involved with Bill Clinton over the years were ridiculed and attacked by the Left. The reason he was given a pass was because of his perceived political support for women. Contrast that with Bill Cosby, who has taken a lot of flack in recent years for daring to be a voice if not for political conservatism then moral conservatism. That’s very different from Bill Clinton’s outward appearance — regardless of how he treated women individually — as a promoter and policy advocate for women’s rights, which is usually code for a woman’s right to have an abortion. That’s why the Clintons have gotten a pass year after year, story after story, woman after woman.”

But Jackson acknowledges that there may be more at work in Bill Clinton’s lifetime pass than simple left/right media bias.

“It’s a fair theory that there has to be some element of the luck of the draw for a series of women to complain and be taken seriously,” she says. “There’s no way to take out the individual facts and circumstances of each situation. In the case of Bill Cosby, there’s something about the way this story has been coming out, and the consistency of the accusations, that isn’t sitting right with people. I say this as someone who over time has been very persuaded that these women are telling the truth about Bill Clinton. But there are very specific circumstances that have to work for the women to be believed. And keep in mind that there wasn’t a consistent pattern with Bill Clinton. You had everything ranging from shoving somebody under the bus after she had a voluntary affair to groping to requests for oral sex to one reported story of an actual rape. So the range of misbehavior was very wide and didn’t all add up to the discomfort or gut factor that you have when the allegations follow a very specific pattern.”

This makes great intuitive sense, but it has little logical or legal weight. If one charge against Cosby is unproven, 20 charges against Cosby are equally unproven. (Constand’s claims were investigated by the district attorney of Montgomery County, Pa., who declined to prosecute; she subsequently sued Cosby and settled for an undisclosed sum.) And even if Juanita Broaddrick is the only woman Bill Clinton has ever raped, Bill Clinton is still a rapist. And it’s worth noting that, unlike several accusers of both Cosby and Clinton, Broaddrick emerged from her public dispute with Clinton — during which time her business was audited by the IRS and she claims her home was broken into — with her character and general reliability never having been seriously impugned. “Nobody ever discredited Juanita,” Jackson says. “They never jumped on her as not credible. Her claim was just swept under the rug, as not worth revisiting, a long time ago.”

There is not much reason to expect Clinton will get a serious new raking over these old coals. His long-suffering wife, having improbably emerged from his presidency as a feminist heroine, sat in the U.S. Senate for eight years, ran for president in 2008, and served as President Obama’s first secretary of state. During that time Clinton’s past behavior never ignited a new mania and no new accusers seem to have emerged — though his eye for a good-looking woman appears to be as undimmed as his flesh is mummified. Hillary Clinton is widely believed to be the Democrats’ only presidential hope for 2016, and it is unlikely that that campaign will inspire a fresh look at Bill Clinton’s past.

But if Bill Cosby has taught us anything, it’s that you never know.

A Story Too Useful to Verify?



By Jonah Goldberg
Wednesday, December 03, 2014

Rolling Stone has published an incredible story about a rape at the University of Virginia, sending shock waves around the country.

But when I say the story is incredible, I mean that in the literal, largely abandoned sense of the word. It is not credible — I don’t believe it.

I’m not saying that the author of the story, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, deliberately fabricated facts. Nor do I believe that all of her reporting was flawed. There may be an outrageously callous attitude toward sexual assaults at UVA. Rape, particularly date rape, may be a major problem there. I’ve talked to enough people with connections to the campus to think that part is credible enough.

But the central story isn’t about a spontaneous alcohol-fueled case of some creep refusing to take no for an answer (an inexcusable offense in my opinion). It’s an account of a well-planned gang rape by seven fraternity pledges at the direction of two members. If true, lots of people need to go to jail for decades — if.

The basic story is this: Jackie is asked out on a date her freshman year by a junior named “Drew” (not his real name). After dinner, they go to a party at Phi Kappa Psi. Quickly, Drew asks Jackie, “Want to go upstairs, where it’s quieter?”

Jackie is led to a “pitch-black” bedroom. She’s knocked to the floor. A heavy person jumps on top of her. A hand covers her mouth. When she bites it, she’s punched in the face. And for the next three hours she’s brutally raped, with Drew and another upperclassman shouting out instructions to the pledges, referring to Jackie as “it.”

Many alleged details (though Erdely never uses the word “alleged”) aren’t suitable for a family paper. Others are simply hard to believe. The pitch-black darkness doesn’t prevent Jackie from recognizing an attacker or seeing them drink beer. The assault takes place amidst the wreckage of a broken glass table, but the rapists are undeterred by shards of glass.

The most unbelievable dialogue comes later. Sometime after 3 a.m., Jackie leaves the still-raging party, “her face beaten, dress spattered with blood,” without anyone seeing her. Distraught, she calls three friends, Andy, Randall, and Cindy (not their real names) for help. They arrive in “minutes.” One of the male friends says they have to take her to the hospital. Cindy replies, “Is that such a good idea?” adding, “Her reputation will be shot for the next four years.”

Erdely expounds: “Andy seconded the opinion, adding that since he and Randall both planned to rush fraternities, they ought to think this through. The three friends launched into a heated discussion about the social price of reporting Jackie’s rape . . . ”

Really? Neither boy put Jackie’s medical needs above their pledge prospects? What a convenient conversation for an exposé of rape culture — it reads like a script written for a feminist avant-garde theater troupe. Similarly, when Jackie reports what happened to school authorities — again, a brutal, premeditated gang rape by nearly half the pledge class of a prominent fraternity — the dean is described as responding with all of the emotion you’d expect if Jackie requested to change majors. Meanwhile, it was all kept hush-hush until Erdely reported it.

Erdely admits she set out to find a sexual-assault story at an elite school like UVA. She looked at lots of other colleges first, but “none of those schools felt quite right” in the words of a Washington Post profile of Erdely. But UVA, which Erdely describes in Rolling Stone as a school without a thriving “radical feminist culture seeking to upend the patriarchy,” was just right. As Worth magazine editor Richard Bradley noted last week, the whole thing seems like an adventure in confirmation bias.

Initially, Erdely wouldn’t say whether she even knew the names of the alleged rapists. Late Monday, according to the Washington Post, Erdely’s editor said Rolling Stone “verified their existence” by talking to Jackie’s friends, but the magazine couldn’t reach them. Uh huh.

Erdely’s story was reported uncritically for days as a powerful example of the “rape epidemic” that is somehow taking place amidst a 20-year decline in reported rapes. News outlets repeated the claim that one in five college women are sexually assaulted. This bogus statistic comes from “The Campus Sexual Assault Study,” a shoddy online survey of just two universities that counted attempted (forced) kissing and the like as “sexual assault” — and never even asked female respondents about rape.

Erdely’s story may be proven true after a needed investigation, but I suspect it will turn out to have been one of those stories too useful to verify.

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Liberalism in Ruins



By Victor Davis Hanson
Tuesday, December 02, 2014

Barack Obama will end his tenure with the ruin of Hope and Change. The implosion was brought about not by the marginalization of Hope and Change, but by the power of the U.S. government to reify the slogan in a way we have not seen since the 1930s.

Survey the wreckage.

The hope-and-change therapeutic approach to foreign relations ended logically with historic cuts in defense, lectures about American culpability, pink lines and the end of Syria, farcical Iranian talks, in Libya the short trip from “leading from behind” to Benghazi, the self-induced suicide of Iraq, the empowerment of Putin, a pivot to Asia that invited ridicule, and the charade of a war against ISIS.

There were only two saving graces to Obama’s misadventures abroad. One, as was also true of the alphabet stew of domestic scandals, each ensuing disaster seemed to divert attention from the prior calamity. Two, Obama was not able to halt new energy exploration on private lands as he had done with federal leasing. So followed a gas and oil renaissance that he opposed but can now claim as a great boon to American global leverage. Otherwise, what Barack Obama has accomplished, in the fashion of British prime minister Stanley Baldwin in the Twenties and Thirties, will be to avoid minor confrontations on his watch — if he is lucky — while ensuring catastrophic ones for his successors.

Obama’s immigration legacy will be the juxtaposition of his serial insistence that he was not a king or an emperor, and could not contravene the Constitution by granting a blanket amnesty, with his efforts to do just that when it was no longer politically inexpedient. I don’t think a president has ever quite so habitually warned the country of the dangers that would soon emanate from himself.

Illegal immigration is praised only by those who benefit directly from it, whether in the familial sense of inexpensive nannies, cooks, or gardeners; or in the corporate interest of cheap labor in the hospitality industries, agriculture, and construction; or in the political sense of new liberal constituents; or in the tribal sense of expanding the so-called La Raza base. But the vast majority of Americans accept that when federal law is ignored, chaos ensues.

The burdens of the attempt to grant federal exemption to millions of foreign nationals who have never followed U.S. immigration law inevitably fall on the middle-class taxpayer and the entry-level worker. We will also soon learn that over 11 million illegal aliens are not all Dream Actors. Rather, there is a huge minority of millions of illegal residents who have broken all sorts of U.S. laws, have not worked and are on public assistance, and have no record of sustained residence in the United States. When a guest chooses to break the laws of his host by entering his home illegally, that is usually the beginning, not the end, of illegality — a mindset and pattern of behavior that in many cases is not ended by simply erasing federal immigration law. The demand for immediate action for those who would qualify for Obama’s amnesties begs the question of whether there would be commensurately quick deportations of those who do not.

Take also global warming — for Secretary of State John Kerry, the world’s greatest challenge.Once the planet did not heat up in the last 18 years, and once the ice of the polar caps did not melt away, global warming begat climate change. The new nomenclature was a clever effort to link all occasional weather extremities to some underlying and fundamental climate disruption. Brilliant though the strategy was — the opposites of cold/hot, drought/deluges, and calm/storms could now all be used as proof of permanent climate change — global warming finally was hoist on its own petard: If it caused everything, then it caused nothing.

So, in the end, what was global warming? It seems to have grown up largely as a late-20th-century critique of global market capitalism by elites who had done so well by it that they had won the luxury of caricaturing the very source of their privilege. Global warming proved a near secular religion that filled a deep psychological longing for some sort of transcendent meaning among mostly secular Western grandees. In reality, the global-warming creed had scant effect on the lifestyles of the high priests who promulgated it. Al Gore did not cut back on his jet-fueled and lucrative proselytizing. Obama did not become the first president who, on principle, traveled with a reduced and green entourage. Solyndra did not run a model transparent company as proof of the nobility of the cause. As in the case of illegal immigration, the losers from the global-warming fad are the working and middle classes, who do not have the capital to be unharmed by the restrictions on cheap, carbon-based fuels.

The natural outcome of the reactionary approach to race relations — identity politics, the salad bowl in lieu of the melting pot, the effusions of trillions of dollars over the last half-century into Great Society dependencies — is Ferguson. We are left with the movement’s slogan, “Hands up; don’t shoot!” which now joins a growing historical corpus of racial mythography — “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit,” and “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

Ferguson illustrated many of the problems of postmodern liberalism: the anti-empirical insistence that the facts of the shooting of Michael Brown did not matter much; critical legal theory, which ignored the time-honored role of a disinterested grand jury; the tolerance of illegality as some sort of acceptable protest against the system; and the liberal media’s hyping a crisis on the understanding that the ramifications of the violence were safely distant from their own schools, neighborhoods, and restaurants.

The bitter truth is that Barack Obama himself is a figure who has always trafficked — albeit far more brilliantly and subtly than the buffoonish Sharpton and Jackson — in racial divisiveness, from his candid admissions in his memoir and his acknowledged dutiful discipleship at the feet of the racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright to “typical white person,” the clingers speech, “punish our enemies,” and the racially charged spin on the ongoing Skip Gates, Trayvon Martin, and Michael Brown cases. A sign of his brilliant racial contortionism is the current canard that losing 6 percent of the black vote is proof of diversity while winning only 40 percent of the white vote is an ominous sign of a new racism.

The more the liberal media outlets of shrinking audiences warned of “increasing racial tensions” as they sought to spike animosities, the more they were oddly deaf to the real story of Ferguson: a growing majority of Americans that has grown tired of racial demagoguery and profiteering. Last month’s election illustrated that the drumbeat of a supposedly old, shrinking, white, and selfish electorate juxtaposed to a new dynamic, idealistic, electorate of color only served to lose Democrats the former voters while not winning enough of the latter voters to make up the difference. After the disastrous Obama tenure, the U.S. will either return to the melting pot and the idea that race and tribe are incidental, not essential, to our characters, or it will eventually go the way of all dysfunctional societies for which that was not true — Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Iraq.

Obamacare was, in the end, little more than a clumsy effort to take over the health-care system by redistributing resources from the supposedly too-well-off to the more noble less-well-off, with billions of dollars siphoned off to expand government bureaucracies and enrich crony capitalists. The architects of the Affordable Care Act were not affected by the ramifications of their own advocacy, which largely fell on the middle class in terms of higher deductibles, premiums, and taxes.

The point of the program was not to provide coverage to millions of uninsured Americans — that could have been done far more cheaply through existing programs — but to create a vast new federal bureaucracy to redistribute health-care resources. The legacy of the ACA will not be the diversion of the indigent from the emergency rooms and state and federal public clinics (which, after all, are largely still free in the sense of no premiums or deductibles), but the spiking of health-care costs through bureaucratic bloat and the rising deductible. The latter should be redefined as a premium, given that middle-class families will now be assessed, in addition to their premiums, hundreds of dollars in health-care costs each month until their much higher yearly deductibles are met.

Finally, and most importantly, Obamism did not even deliver on its extravagant promises of a new ethos of ending crony capitalism, the revolving door, lobbyists in government, and government corruption. Indeed, Obama will go down in history as presiding over the most corrupt administration of the last half-century, when historians finally collate the IRS, VA, GSA, and Secret Service scandals; the erosion of constitutional jurisprudence; the serial untruths about Benghazi, amnesty, and Obamacare; the harassment of journalists; the record shakedown of Wall Street lucre in 2008 and 2012;and the flood of lobbyists into and out of the Obama administration. Eric Holder – with his jet-setting to sporting events on the public dime, spouting inflammatory racialist rhetoric, politicizing the Justice Department, selectively enforcing settled law, and being held in contempt of Congress for withholding subpoenaed documents — managed what one might have thought impossible: He has made Nixon’s attorney general John Mitchell seem a minor rogue in comparison.

Six years after the summer of hope and change, no one in the Democratic party is showcasing American foreign policy, pushing for cap-and-trade legislation, singing the praises of Obamacare, bragging about the way amnesty was handled, or pointing to a new cleaner and more transparent federal bureaucracy. What started out with “hope and change” and “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” ended up with a president who habitually misleads his countrymen, a baffling array of scandals, the discrediting of the obsequious media, and policies that not only did not work but by any historical model could never really have worked.

As proof, watch as Democrats regroup for 2016. Their unspoken commandment will be that most of what Obama did, they must either ignore or deny.

Black Lives Matter



By Kevin D. Williamson
Monday, December 01, 2014

David McKenna, the screenwriter who penned Tony Kaye’s American History X, committed one of the great acts of intellectual cowardice in the history of modern American cinema. Telling the story of Derek Vinyard, a violent neo-Nazi who reexamines his squandered life while being tormented in prison, McKenna explores the origins of the angry young skinhead’s predispositions by revisiting Vinyard’s high-school days: In flashback, we see a breakfast-table conversation between the young man and his father (played by the excellent Edward Norton and William Russ, respectively). Vinyard and his father get into a discussion of affirmative action. His father, a fireman, makes a reasoned and principled case, if not an entirely eloquent one, that by promoting two black candidates over two better-qualified white candidates, affirmative action has put his life in danger. He resents that he must entrust his life to two men who are less qualified for their positions but who were hired nonetheless because of their race. “Is that what America’s about?” he demands. “No! America’s about the best man for the job.” But before the point can quite settle in, the father starts speculating about the “hidden agenda” and, finally, leans in and whispers conspiratorially to his son: “It’s n****r bulls***.”

Dramatically, that makes no sense. American History X would be an even more powerful story if the transformative moment in young Derek’s life — his father’s murder at the hands of black criminals during a firefighting call — had sparked a different and more radical sort of transformation in the Vinyard family, from the well-intentioned, best-man-for-the-job philosophy of the resentful but reasonable working-class father to the violent extremism of the son. Instead, the story is simply one of explicit, banal racism that deepens between generations, at a time when American society was overwhelmingly on the opposite course. But the father’s principled criticism of affirmative action cannot be allowed to stand; it must be thoroughly hosed down with racism, conspiracy-theory talk, and the totemic deployment of that infamous racial epithet.

In the view of America’s race-hustling professionals, there is no principled disagreement with them — there is only gross racism, either hidden or open.

It is possible — barely possible — that this is in fact how the Left sees the world: That behind every criticism of affirmative action, behind every anti-crime measure, behind every proposal for welfare reform, behind every expression of capitalism, behind every measure taken against voter fraud, behind every criticism of the Ferguson lynch mob — and even behind every fraction — a burning cross looms, men in white hoods await, and the lynching noose is being prepared. That view is borderline insane and contrary to the overwhelming evidence of contemporary American life as lived, but people hold all sorts of loopy views, so it is just within the boundaries of plausibility that people on the Left, so-called progressives, genuinely hold this view.

More likely, the spectral evidence of white supremacy in our modern Salem race trials is simply a rhetorical tool, a way for well-fed progressives to beat their critics into submission if one of them should happen to point out that progressive policies seem to produce reliably horrific results for people who are poor and, especially, poor and black. That Thomas Edsall sincerely believes that welfare reform is shaped in part by ugly stereotypes about blacks malingering on the dole is, despite the man’s intellectual dishonesty, more plausible than Jamelle Bouie’s daft and hallucinatory suggestion that my description of a thin black kid with long braids as resembling a scale-model of Snoop Dogg is a coded racist dog-whistle referring to the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise. Students of history will recall that Mr. Madison’s ugly political expedient did not refer to three-fifths of a Snoop Dogg.

It is a seldom-appreciated irony that irresponsible allegations of racism are politically effective in the American context precisely because American society takes racism so seriously; in a society with more cavalier attitudes toward racism, such dishonest opportunism would bear less fruit. Politicians in Spain and the Republic of Korea, for example, worry a good deal less about insinuations that they might harbor insensitive racial attitudes. But in the context of the United States, one can effectively win a political argument not by demonstrating to any reasonable standard of evidence that one’s opponent is a racist but simply by maneuvering him into explaining that he isn’t a racist. It’s the “Have you stopped beating your wife yet” gambit on a grand and nasty scale.

So when former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani takes seriously the operative slogan of the Ferguson protests — “Black Lives Matter!” — and asks the obvious question — “Don’t they matter in the 93 percent of cases when the lives of black murder victims are taken violently by black criminals?” — the Left’s reflexive response is to denounce him as a racist. The Washington Post’s hilariously Orwellian fact-check column labeled Giuliani a liar even as it confirmed that his observation is, as a matter of fact, entirely true. If David McKenna had been writing the scene, Giuliani would have leaned across a table and whispered to Sean Hannity that this is all “n****r bulls***.”

But real life doesn’t go according to script. That’s why we have the New York Times et al. — to write the script according to the Left’s dramatic imperatives, regardless of what actually happens. The media may not control the stage entirely, but they do control the lighting and the sound.

The reality is this: Black men, especially young black men, die violent deaths at appalling rates in these United States. But they do not die very often at the hands of the Ku Klux Klan, thugs reminiscent of characters from American History X, police officers of any race or motivation, lynch mobs, the Koch brothers, Karl Rove, Walmart, the Tea Party, Goldman Sachs, carbon dioxide, or any other bogeyman currently in vogue among so-called progressives. As Giuliani noted, blacks die violent deaths almost exclusively at the hands of black criminals. But attempting to accommodate that reality in any serious way does not pay any political dividends for the Left. It does not put any money in Jesse Jackson’s pockets or create any full-time jobs for graduates of grievance-studies programs.

And thus we have the very peculiar situation in which “Black Lives Matter!” but black perpetrators don’t. Only white perpetrators matter. And if, as in the case of George Zimmerman, they are not exactly white, then they can be declared white by the New York Times. Only white perpetrators matter to the people behind the Ferguson protests because only white perpetrators are politically useful.

The overwhelming majority of violent deaths suffered by black Americans are the result of simple crime, and crime is, as an issue, of no use to the Left. But when a black man dies at the hands of a white man — especially a white police officer — then that breathes life into the ghost of “white supremacy,” the infinitely malleable, endlessly useful set of imperial robes detectable only by the finest sensibilities on MSNBC. Actual white supremacists represent a dwindling and (metaphorically and, more often than you might expect, literally) toothless tendency restricted mostly to hillbilly precincts and anonymous Internet cowards. But if one already wants to boycott Walmart, and a white cop shoots a young black man, then — abracadabra! — the Left is boycotting Walmart because of . . . white supremacy, or something. Agitating for a $40 minimum wage? “Justice for Mike Brown!” Looking for even more generous solar-power subsidies? “Justice for Mike Brown!” Anointing AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka president-for-life? “Mike Brown would have wanted it that way!”

If you believe that black lives matter, then you should be working for school reform, economic growth, and — yes — more effective law-enforcement and crime-prevention measures to protect black communities, which suffer an enormously disproportionate share of crime and violence. Never mind the stagecraft: That’s what you actually do if you think black lives matter.

And the drama that’s going on in Ferguson right now? That’s what you do if you think black lives are merely useful to you — and, in the end, expendable.