In Morals We Trust - Part III: Name-calling Self-defense
by eriposte
In response to my previous post (In Morals We Trust - Part II), commenter Bruce said:
...I agree with the thrust of your argument, but I disagree that we should be calling these people immoral. How does that advance the cause for our values? How can we resist them calling gays immoral and then turn around and spit it back on them? Let's just tell the truth about the values we both stand for, and let people make the choice about which values they truly identify with. I think progressives would win the debate if we compare our values--individual liberty, belief in the role of government to provide safety net and security, being a model for human rights in the world, etc--to the rightie values of imposing social authoritarianism in the name of God and a laissez faire economy. But the name calling and judgment language just ramps up the hostility even further...
Bruce, with due respect, you've bought into a common misconception. If someone is perpetually abused by another, the former has the moral right to defend himself or herself against the abuse. I am not asking anyone to indulge in "name calling" or moralizing without provocation. To clarify, I'm not even asking people to become over-sensitive and fire back strong words at every little provocation. I'm pointing out that timidity and polite mutterings (of facts) in the face of relentless or extraordinary abuse, lies or slander is wrong.
Self-defense is moral -- and I'm not talking about violence here. I'm talking about defending, via free speech, one's own values and dignity. More importantly, the defense of those whom you have promised to serve and protect is an even greater moral obligation. That is why I have made it a mission to chide progressives who are afraid to speak about what is moral and what is not (perhaps Amy will care to say a few more words on this as well?). You cannot truly do your job of protecting those who have entrusted you with their faith and their life if you are unwilling to see the moral dimension of your job - whether the job you hold is that of a politician or that of someone who is responsible for shepherding the lives or savings of ordinary people.
To understand this better, let's step away from politics for a moment and talk about day-to-day life in the crosshairs of the Far Right. Late last year, the Far Right group Alliance Defense Fund (whose founders are part of the Who's Who of the so-called "Christian Right" in this country, including Senate Majority Leader Radical Cleric James Dobson) initiated a bogus lawsuit against an innocent public school principal (Patricia Vidmar) in California using false claims by a radical Right teacher (Stephen Williams). I covered the case fairly extensively earlier this year. When I saw the extreme passivity of the response of the Chair/Board of the school district despite the right-wing-media-led hate-fest against the Principal and the School, I wrote (in part):
The teacher, Mr. Williams, has already become a cause celebre for an unimaginably vast base of people who are misinformed and misled daily by ideologues in the media, uncritical reporters, and the disinformation machine of the Christian Right. The negative publicity resulted in a flood of hate mail and threatening phone calls to the school's Principal and teachers. If Mr. Williams were to lose the case, he will become an even bigger cause celebre because his supporters will be told day in and day out that he lost not because he was wrong but because the schools and the judges are wrong, because the schools and judges are hostile to religion and "moral values". This will give them, ala Alabama's Roy Moore, yet another ideological figurehead to hold on to, to direct fictitious attacks against the "activist" judges or "liberal" schools and teachers, and to allow them to raise more funds to continue this practice against more public schools across the nation. If someone naively thinks this matter will be "won" in the courts, then they will have only themselves to blame when they discover that they lost long before that. The extensive disinformation campaign to fraudulently set in place an opposing conventional wisdom - well before the lawsuit is even adjudicated - achieves much of its goal in the earliest phase of the campaign.
...
I don't mean anything harsh by this, but as representatives of the school district you have a responsibility to correct misinformation in the media - not passively but aggressively. You have a responsibility to protect public education, which is paid by taxpayer dollars, from false and misleading attacks that reduce the confidence of citizens in the ability of public schools to do what is right. You have a responsibility to educate American citizens that they are being misinformed and being lied to every day. You owe it to your teachers, to your students, to parents, to taxpayers, to your own office and to the country.
Now, I doubt that my letter to the Board had any impact, but I had to write it because I saw that their efforts to stay "above the fray" and respond dispassionately, with the facts alone (as commenter Bruce has suggested), showed (an unintentional) disregard for the moral dimension of the problem - the pain and suffering caused to the Principal, other teachers, the elementary school students and their parents (a large number of whom decided to try and fight back to the extent they could with their website: We The Parents). That's not all though, because I also alerted the Board to the long history of nasty - not dispassionate - right-wing attacks on public education and teachers in public schools. In the face of all that, the Board's passive response to the charlatans who went after them and the frauds in the media who incited uncalled-for venom against innocent Americans, was unacceptable. Don't get me wrong here. The Board's actions may have been "technically" proper and I'm certainly not trying to say they were bad people. I'm sure their intentions were good. But their lack of awareness of the moral imperatives of their job, as opposed to the practicalities of it, allowed the Far Right to get away with monumental deception and hate-mongering once again. (Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest also covered some of the important extra-legal dimensions of this case, which you should read.)
I picked the example of public schools to show you how real lives of everyday Americans come apart because of the Far Right's relentless attacks. But this is not just about public schools. It's about anyone or any group that doesn't fit the mold of the Far Right - liberals/Progressives in general, judges, academics (also see here), gays, trial lawyers, the mainstream media, you name it. So, here is what I have to say to Bruce and others who feel the way he does. I'm not suggesting we become like the Far Right. Not one bit. I'm suggesting that we simply stop taking their false attacks, slander, bigotry and hatred lying down. As an individual I have a moral obligation to defend attacks against me or my family. As a politician, a Democrat has a moral obligation to fight back and defend Americans who are mistreated, slandered or falsely accused by the Far Right and its appendages - also known as the Republican Misinformation Machine.
We live in an age where Democratic/liberal patriots who risked life and limb for their country are slandered by their chickenhawk colleagues or peers who form the dregs of society, or by organized fraud squads pimped (directly or indirectly) by immoral ex-Senators. Egregious mainstream and right-wing media malpractice against liberals/Democrats is routine. Those who repeatedly slander liberals and Democrats are almost celebrated or at least happily tolerated in the media. I could go on and on...these are not times where one has even a prayer of winning the battle against this decades-long intimidation and vilification campaign by merely being polite. In an age where America's future is being hijacked by radicals who are trying to set records for mendacity, corruption and incompetence, it is not morally acceptable to simply rely on a dispassionate enunciation of "facts". It is imperative that the moral dimension of what we face today be made resoundingly clear to Americans. We shouldn't have to scream or go into a rage over this, but we need to make sure we are loud and proud defenders of our moral values and be willing to call a spade a spade when it comes to those who are throwing bricks our way.
Left on my own, I would not moralize or claim to be morally "superior" to an average person on the street, for I have my own strengths and weaknesses. I am certainly not claiming to be a pinnacle of morality. Yet, I, as much as any other Progressive, have a responsibility to defend the moral foundations of progressivism and its believers from the vast numbers of hypocrites on the Right who don't hesitate to pass moral judgments on the Left. As long as they stoop to judge others, especially on the Left, I'm going to be ready to judge them. And...
It's not "name calling". It is self-defense and it's moral.
It is not about increasing hostility (that's the media's spin) - it is about setting the record straight.
It is not about being self-righteous. It is about exposing the true colors of those who claim a near monopoly on self-righteousness.
It is not hypocrisy. It is about exposing hypocrisy.
It is not about moralizing. It is about defending your own moral values.