A Word from London

Herbert London

Herbert London is John M. Olin, Professor of Humanities at N.Y.U., President of the Hudson Institute, author of Decade of Denial, published by Lexington Books, and publisher of American Outlook. He can be reached at: www.herblondon.org.

A Challenge the West Must Confront

While American forces are on the battlefield in Iraq to thwart the influence of radical Islamists, the West seems to be engaged in a form of preemptive surrender.

Targeted assassinations in the Netherlands have intimidated Dutch leaders.

The British in one provincial government are voluntarily covering porcine images fearing some offense against Muslims in their midst.

American military leaders were engaged in a thorough examination of allegations about urine-splattered Korans in the Guantanamo Bay prison.

Four people died in Alexandria, Egypt, when a stage play deemed offensive to Muslims was recorded and distributed on a DVD. Five thousand Muslim rioters rampaged through two predominately Christian neighborhoods.

Although the French government was primarily concerned about Muslim garb in this ostensibly Christian nation, it banned all religious displays so that Muslims would not consider themselves targeted.

The willingness of radical Islamists to employ violence in response to real or perceived grievances is a tactic that has intimidated many leaders worldwide. There is scarcely a Western leader--I cannot think of one--who has been critical of Islam’s violent Koranic characteristics. 

By contrast, when a soi disant artist plastered elephant dung on a portrait of Madonna in the Brooklyn Museum most establishment figures defended the artist’s right of expression. I can only imagine what would happen if a likeness of Prophet Mohammed were treated in similar fashion.

Where, for example, are the demonstrations of the movie industry over the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim extremist? It is instructive that these same filmmakers are still aggrieved over the stifling tactics of Joseph McCarthy in the 1950’s, but cannot marshal indignation when one of their brethren is murdered for a film about Islamic women. This can only be described as the silence of intimidation.

For Muslim extremists a willingness, alas an eagerness, to die offers them a distinct public advantage over Westerners who put a justifiable premium on life. As one Muslim critic asked of his detractors in Europe: “Are there causes for which you would die?” In secular societies the answer is increasingly “No.”

Many American students who don’t know that the American Revolution preceded the French Revolution and wear Che Guevara tee shirts with pride would never consider a disparaging word about Islam. They have been trained in incapacity and assume that any form of discrimination is wrong.

The West contends that the separation of church and state is an overarching characteristic of stable societies. For Islam, there is only Sharia, religious law, which transcends governmental decisions. As a consequence, Islamists have great difficulty with the secularization of the laws. Allah is not merely a focus of worship, but the inspiration for all legal and governmental matters.

As Hegel noted, the state is secure when citizens can engage in the renunciation of appetites in behalf of the law. In the West, law is abiding because the law abides. But what emerges when religious fervor doesn’t permit limitation? What happens to Western permissiveness when a sub-culture refuses to embrace the secular dimensions of the law?

The answers are already apparent. Islam is treated as special, a state of religion different from the others. Western authorities avert their gaze from the horrors in their midst. They refuse to consider the necessary steps for stability such as forced deportation. They are confused by religious zealotry at the very moment they have lost their own religious impulses.

We have come to tolerate an intolerant, totalistic sub-culture that prospers in liberal societies that offer ideological cover. Now we must experiment with techniques to control the enemy from within. Thus far, the score card is not in our favor. Can this condition be reversed? Will the West come to appreciate the threat to their democracies? The future of the West depends on answers to these questions. 

Gratuitous Politics and Profanity in the Arts

If one goes to a barber, one expects to pay for a haircut, not political commentary. One may get the latter, but only if one is satisfied with the former. Of course, one can always tell a barber to just “zip it.”

In this era, everyone has a political opinion that they don’t have any qualms about sharing with strangers. My former dentist once told me--after I said “have a good day”--that “it would be a good day if George Bush loses the election.” Needless to say, she is entitled to her political view, but I didn’t go to see her for political guidance.

In a far more public arena, Mandy Potemkin proceeded to deliver a political diatribe against the Bush administration during a Broadway performance. I’m not sure how many of those in the audience paid $65 to hear a political speech, but they got one nonetheless.

In the much acclaimed play “25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee” there is snide commentary about Karl Rove which has nothing to do with the storyline; it is merely the playwright’s way of saying “I don’t like this administration.”

Hollywood, of course, is notorious for inserting political innuendo into a film script. Whenever there is some buffoon on screen, the protagonist is likely to say, “Oh, he must be a Republican.” (Pace: the “Wedding Crashers”)

Now if I spend 10 bucks for a comedy about two guys who crash weddings in order to pick up women, I don’t want unnecessary political commentary. However, in Hollywood productions, you can be sure you’ll get it.

It is different, of course, if you go to hear a performer engage in a political riff, whether it’s Jackie Mason, Mort Sahl or “The Capitol Steps.” You know from the critics, audience “buzz” and the past performance of these entertainers you can expect to see these comedians focus much of their material on politics. But couldn’t we have been spared Bette Midler’s curse-laden attack on the Bush Administration during what should have been a solidarity driven hurricane relief fundraiser?

As a staunch advocate of First Amendment freedom I am certainly not advocating stifling debate or, for that matter, the expression of not particularly insightful political commentary. But I do find it objectionable to pay a lot of money for entertainment that gratuitously offers something other than what’s been advertised.

And that is only half of it. In an entertainment world that has lost any sense of propriety, gratuitous profanity is also being introduced into the equation.

A dear friend recently took her grandchildren to see the already mentioned “Spelling Bee.” Although this Broadway production was advertised as “family fare” there is a song about “erections” and other words most parents would agree are inappropriate for children. My friend was offended, not because she is a prude, but because she was made to feel uncomfortable in front of her grandchildren.

There is an alternative. Encourage theaters and concert halls to expand the current ratings used for movies. Plays and concerts would have disclaimers including “R” if they employ profanity so that grandparents can know what to expect if they take their grandchildren to a winter performance of the “Nutcracker” where the traditional storyline might now include a heroin addicted, foul mouthed Mouse King. Or a “C” for controversial if the playwright offering us a comedy decides to insert a diatribe on abortion, intelligent design, or illegal immigration. We may not like his political position, but at least we won’t be able to say we were surprised. Similarly, we should offer “GPO” for “gratuitous political observations” if the format encourages musical artists to pop off with their personal non sequitur take on politics in the middle of a performance.

Some might contend that this is no more than caveat emptor, but I would contend our society demands truth in advertising. If a performer insists on propagandizing or cursing, I should know about it. Give me his “propriety rating” before I purchase a ticket for family members, grandchildren, or myself and let me make an informed decision.

In the end, those who want to hear Bush or Clinton bashing will decide whether to attend a particular concert, recital, play, or film. Those who want to take grandchildren to a play will be made aware of the profanities displayed and decide in advance their personal comfort level. It’s not too much to request. When one considers that it now costs close to $100 to buy a Broadway ticket, the consumer should have the same right of informed decision-making that he or she encounters in the supermarket aisle. Given for what passes for political commentary these days, those who read the ingredients on a package or sausage prior to lunch will now be equally comfortable in knowing what’s waiting for them inside a darkened auditorium.

Bill Bennett and the P.C. Police

The p.c. police are at it again. Bill Bennett, the former Secretary of Education, responded to a pro-life caller on his radio program and stepped on what has become a verbal land mine.

The caller argued that if an abortion right didn’t exist, there would be many more taxpayers in the nation capable of addressing financial needs. Dr. Bennett, who is pro-life, argued that these causal relationships are complicated and not easily determined. He made reference to the book Freakonomics that, among several arguments, contends that the reduction in crime rates nationally is due to the disproportionate rate of abortion in the black community, a community that has the highest rate of crime among various racial groups.

Using this book as a reference point, Bennett went on to note that if you accept the supposition, abortion could be an instrument for crime reduction, a solution he called “morally reprehensible.”

Of course, the p.c. police only heard or chose to hear, the first part of the argument. Reverend Al Sharpton, in high dungeon, said that Bennett should apologize and all these who support Bennett should apologize. He was not alone.

Yet this matter deserves explanation that facile criticism doesn’t provide.

First, the thesis Bennett made reference to was originally stated by others. One can choose to accept or refute the argument. Considering the context, Dr. Bennett was arguing that this form of reasoning does not take into consideration variables that modify the effect.

Moreover, discourse of this kind is precisely what the country requires in order to make informed decisions. Had the same conversation taken place on NPR, it would have been a non-event. But this, after all, occurred on the Bill Bennett program, a conservative program, which is held to a different standard of taste.

While liberals invariably shun censorship of any kind, it appears to be okay to censor a conservative when he steps over the arbitrary line of debate liberals have established.

Second is the substantive issue that the critics have overlooked. The pathology of violence does indeed influence blacks more than other ethnic and racial groupings. This violence occurs with a minority of blacks, and much of it is black on black attacks. But it is also the case, as FBI statistics indicate, that it is ten times more likely a black will assault a white person than vice versa. Is it racist to make this argument?

Third, it is distinctly unfair to attack a man whose entire career is based on addressing the concerns of inner city minorities. Bennett and his wife Elaine have devoted themselves to assisting youngsters in the inner city; most of these kids are black. Shouldn’t a man like Bennett be given a pass on this issue considering his history and his commitment to minority opportunities?

Last, it must be noted that Bill Bennett is a man of unimpeachable integrity. He is not a rabble rouser or demagogue like many of those who assailed his character. In addition, there are many acts of generosity and kindness that he has conducted behind a media glare that demonstrate his superb character.

Unfortunately we live in an age when character assassination is a sport. It is the equivalent of contemporary gladiatorial events. Instead of being thrown to the lions, today’s subjects are thrown into the net of media condemnation. Many of these subjects are innocent of any wrongdoing, but that hardly matters. Media buffs need villains.

In this case, a good man has been falsely accused. He is certainly not the first and won’t be the last to face public pillorying. Yet it is an injustice that should be noted and deplored. Bill Bennett deserves better and, despite the hostility of professional demagogues, I’d like to believe he will get it. 

Pay Check Protection in California

Suppose someone told you that you were obliged to provide financial support for a candidate you opposed. Most sensible people would find this absurd. And indeed it is.

Remarkably union members in the United States face an obligatory deduction from their pay stubs so that union leaders can support candidates many of the members might not vote for.

This November California voters will consider a “paycheck protection” law--Proposition 75 which could prevent unions from forcibly collecting dues for political purposes. Organized labor is apoplectic about this initiative since passage would strike a major blow to its political clout.

But it is noteworthy that a disconnect exists between union leaders and rank and file members. To cite one example: Bustamante, the Democratic candidate in the last California gubernatorial campaign, had near monolithic support from the unions, yet exit polling showed that 38 percent of union members voted for Schwarzenegger, the Republican candidate and eventual winner.

Should Prop 75 pass, union members will be able to have their voices heard without leaders speaking for them. They may say “no” without facing retribution.

Larry Sand, a teacher in the Los Angeles Unified school district said:

I don’t understand how anybody could be against this because the issue is so simple. I just don’t want my money to go to political causes I find offensive.

 

While it is difficult to challenge this argument and even more difficult to make a case for the denial of political freedom, it isn’t clear whether this proposal will be successful. A similar paycheck initiative on the California ballot in 1998 polled well, but went down to defeat. Of course the 1998 initiative applied to all unions, while this year’s measure applies solely for public employee unions.

 

It is instructive that unions associated with manufacturing account for 7.9 percent of union membership with the vast majority now in municipal unions. In addition, Governor Schwarzenegger is supporting the measure along with the most visible national Republican “wannabes,” McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Allen.

As one might expect, union leaders are eagerly raising funds to defeat the initiative. And where does this money come from? Ironically, it means that members will pay more dues so that union leaders can maintain control over them. In 1998, unions outspent their opponents by a 10 to 1 margin. There is little doubt the unions will outspend the opposition again.

But will the unions win? Despite the fear this initiative has engendered and the aggressive campaign against it, I would hazard a guess the paycheck protection will be deemed a fair and reasonable way to ensure fundamental rights for rank and file union members.

California may be a state with mercurial voting patterns and every odd phenomenon God’s creatures can conjure, but residents are also accustomed to fair play. Ultimately that is what is at stake in this initiative. It seems odd in a country that fought for and won political independence, we should be fighting this battle more than 200 years later.

Voters don’t have to say as Patrick Henry once did, “Give me liberty or give me death.” All they have to say is give political freedom or reject it. The choice is simple; the consequences are profound and the moment is right around the corner.     *

“One thing about a police state, you can always find the police.” –L. Neil Smith

*****

We would like to thank the following people for their generous donations towards the support of this journal (from 9/14/2005 to 11/9/2005): H. W. Agnew, Ariel, Nancy M. Bannick, William A. Barr, Harry S. Barrows, Gordon D. Batcheller, Charles Benscheidt, Aleatha W. Berry, Thomas M. Burt, Terry Cahill, William C. Campion, Irma I. Clark, Samuel J. Criscio, Milton Friedman, Jane F. Gelderman, Violet H. Hall, John H. Hearding, Thomas E. Heatley, Richard Herreid, Jaren E. Hiller, Marilyn P. Jaeger, O. Walter Johnson, Ken E. Kampfe, Thomas F. Kordonowy, Harvey & Mary Larsen, James A. Lee, Herbert London, Gregor MacDonald, Curtis Dean Mason, Delbert H. Meyer, Robert A. Moss, James S. O’Brien, B. William Pastoor, Daniel D. Payne, Garland L. & Betty Pugh, Patrick L. Risch, Paul Sopko, Norman Stewart, Zelig Strauss, Paul B. Thompson, Robert C. Whitten, Herbert A. Widell, Gaylord T. Willett, Piers Woodriff.