Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Just a Company of American paratroopers, a guitar plugged
into the outpost's PA system, and a whole lot of demolitions.
Notes on the Theory of Crypto-Bigotry
By TomlinsonDouthat Posted in Culture — Comments (33) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
1.) By crypto-bigotry, I mean the phenomenon of people holding bigoted views against certain groups, but trying to keep these views secret from all but trusted, like-minded intimates, due to the various pressures against bigotry in modern society. By the theory of crypto-bigotry, I mean the belief that this phenomenon is common today and that this affects the workings of modern society in various, significant ways. One of the effects most commonly alleged is that politicians play to the crypto-bigotry of their constituents by uttering "code words," sending hidden messages, and supporting policies designed to harm the groups targeted by crypto-bigotry, but the effects of crypto-bigotry are also alleged to be seen in the media and elsewhere.
The belief I refer to here as the theory of crypto-bigotry is rarely expressed explicitly or explored systematically, but it clearly serves as an implicit premise to much political discourse today.
2.) It is probable that crypto-bigotry exists, from the demonstrable facts that bigotry exists and that there are great social pressures against the expression of bigotry. However, since the bare existence of crypto-bigotry cannot explain the ways in which it is usually spoken of, and the effects it is alleged to have on society, it must be assumed that the theory of crypto-bigotry holds that it is a common phenomenon, which assumption is incorporated into the definition above.
3.) In order for many accusations of crypto-bigotry to make sense—in particular those involving politicians allegedly appealing to crypto-bigots—the theory of crypto-bigotry must be taken as holding that crypto-bigots are so numerous that they are an electoral force whose support is worth seeking. Since an appeal to crypto-bigotry necessarily presents a risk to any politician inclined to make it—because being caught at it would force him into ignominy for the very reasons that bigotry was forced underground in the first place—it follows that the contingent of crypto-bigots must be very large indeed in order to justify such a risky path. And considering that the means with which a politician who wishes to communicate with his crypto-bigot supporters must be secret, hence prone to misinterpretation, and hence running the danger of only being communicated to a fraction of these crypto-bigots, it follows that the entire population of crypto-bigots must be enormous: Following such a risky path to appeal only to a fraction of anything but an enormous population would be foolish. But if the population of crypto-bigots is so large, then why do they feel the need to keep their bigotry hidden?
4.) Accusations of crypto-bigotry are made with reference to almost every political issue. Opposition to current immigration policies is often held to be indicative of bigotry against Hispanics and of xenophobia in general. Opposition to affirmative action is often held to be indicative of anti-black racism. Opposition to abortion is often held to be indicative of animosity towards women. Advocacy of certain military actions is often held to be indicative of anti-Muslim bigotry. Seemingly, crypto-bigots are obsessed with applying their bigotry to every possible political issue. If such large numbers, as established above, are this obsessed with their bigotry, then it is all the more curious that they feel the need to keep it hidden, and that they are able to do so.
5.) According to the theory of crypto-bigotry, arguments for those policies supported by crypto-bigots on the basis of their bigotry must seem legitimate in order to conceal their true nature, but they cannot be legitimate, due to their true nature. In fact, they must be completely absurd in order for the charge of crypto-bigotry to be established with anything approaching certainty, since any plausibility to the argument might provide non-bigots with reasons to support these policies. On paper, then, the political struggle between crypto-bigots and anti-crypto-bigots should be indistinguishable from the most high-minded debate of public policy, with one side vigorously attacking the other's position on the merits, and that side defending their position's legitimacy and desirability. Any aspersions on the motives of the alleged crypto-bigots would be logically unsupportable until their position had been demonstrated to be utterly absurd, and if such absurdity were established, then any aspersions on their motives would be unnecessary. This, however, is not the way things usually work, which leads one to suspect that the motives of those making accusations of crypto-bigotry are something other than merely fighting the policies advocated by those they accuse.
6.) Since any argument making an appeal to crypto-bigotry must be plausible in order to retain its cryptic nature, and since such an argument must be shown to be utterly implausible in order to prove its bigoted nature, it follows that no argument can ever be proven to be an appeal to crypto-bigotry.
7.) Anyone arguing that a certain instance provides even partial evidence of the truth of the theory of crypto-bigotry must answer a number of questions before this evidence can be taken seriously:
First, is the evidence true? Given the cryptic nature of crypto-bigotry, it would be easier for it to make itself known in private contexts, safe from the scrutiny of outsiders, and so from verifiability.
Second, is the instance at issue a matter of crypto-bigotry or open bigotry? Open bigots certainly exist, and the perpetrator of any instance of bigotry cannot be proven not to be an open bigot without considerable biographical information unlikely to be both available and verifiable.
Third, was the instance misinterpreted? Was it a matter of someone being behind on the standards of the euphemism treadmill? Was it a simple misunderstanding gone awry? Are there other explanations available? And if so, are they more plausible than crypto-bigotry? (The more widely the theory of crypto-bigotry is believed, the more likely an innocent encounter is to be misinterpreted as an instance of crypto-bigotry. If the report of this misinterpreted encounter is propagated, this will seem to provide all the more reason to give credence to the theory in general. Thus does the theory of crypto-bigotry self-perpetuate.)
Fourth, was the instance exaggerated in its propagation? Tales are often embellished when they are passed on informally, and the media has been known to make mistakes in transmitting the facts of the stories they cover.
Fifth, is it exceptional? As noted above, crypto-bigotry probably does exist to an extent, but the theory of crypto-bigotry is meaningless unless crypto-bigotry is very widespread. A handful of perfectly verifiable cases of crypto-bigotry according to the standards above cannot establish it as a widespread phenomenon in a nation of 300 million people. And if circumstances were to change such that a sufficient number of verifiable instances could be found to establish crypto-bigotry as being widespread, it is unlikely that the prefix would still be appropriate.
8.) The theory of crypto-bigotry provides great motivation for non-bigots to distance themselves from those positions said to be indicative of crypto-bigotry. Let us imagine, for instance, someone entering into the debate on immigration reform without any preconceived notions about the merits of either side. He would soon find out that, if he were to take one side of the debate, he would face the prospect of being tainted by an association with bigots, and perhaps being called a bigot directly. But if he were to join the other side of the debate, the dangers he would face would be much less severe: being called wrong, being called an idiot, or being called mean for calling other people bigots undeservedly—unpleasant perhaps, but nothing like the ignominy heaped upon alleged bigots. And even if he should decide to join the "wrong" side of the debate, the risk to his social status posed by this association with perceived bigots would be so great that it would provide him with great reason to distance himself from them in other matters, often thereby serving the larger ideological interests of those advancing the accusations of crypto-bigotry, and possibly giving additional support to the theory of crypto-bigotry in general, if he accepts its premises in justifying his inoculative positions.
9.) The theory of crypto-bigotry protects and elevates the status of those who advance it. Doing so inoculates them against charges of bigotry. It makes them seem brave and virtuous by daring to fight these dark forces at work in society. And it makes them seem particularly intelligent and worldly, in that they are able to perceive these forces that are by definition hidden from most people. In this way, belief in the theory of crypto-bigotry might be thought of as a meme—a belief which presents utility to its holder independent of its truth. It might be true, but even if it ceased to be true, its utility would not be affected, and hence it would likely continue to be believed.
10.) It is noteworthy how many similarities exist between the theory of crypto-bigotry and conspiracy theories. Both posit that dark, hidden, and vastly powerful forces are at work in society. Both posit that the masses are benighted—either complicit in or ignorant of the workings of these forces. Hence, both assert the superiority of those who hold these theories, both for their superior virtue and for their superior intellect in being able to perceive what others cannot. Both posit that a curiously large number of people are able to keep secret vast amounts of explosive information. Both are posited in such a way as to seem immune either to proof or to disproof. The problems posited by both can only be solved by a vast reworking of society, however unlikely to be successful. The only major difference is the degree of organization posited for the conspirators/crypto-bigots.
11.) It is quite arbitrary what markers are held to be indicative of crypto-bigotry. One set of policies, argued by its proponents to be in the best interest of a certain group, is held as evidence that these proponents are not bigots. Another set of policies, argued by its proponents to be in the best interest of the same group, is held as evidence of how devious these proponents are in concealing their bigotry.
And on certain issues, both sides of the debate are commonly said to be motivated by crypto-bigotry. For instance, it is difficult to hold any opinion at all on the subject of Israel without someone thinking you are motivated either by anti-Semitism by anti-Muslim bigotry.
12.) Those who make arguments resting on the theory of crypto-bigotry often seek to remove certain ideas from serious political discourse. Any success this effort wins will limit, perhaps severely, the scrutiny that their preferred policies or candidates face. This is likely to prevent certain weaknesses in these policies or candidates from being exposed and/or appreciated, and hence corrected if possible. Once the consequences of such weakness are exposed, the policies or candidates being protected in this way will not only suffer in their own right, but the failures invited by this oversight might in some cases provide some people with an excuse for actual bigotry, thus being doubly counterproductive.
Some possible examples of this:
Mitt Romney's presidential campaign seems to have been greatly concerned with the problems anti-Mormon bigotry might make for his candidacy, to the extent that he gave a major speech on the subject. Many Romney supporters claimed that other criticisms of their candidate were mere fig leaves covering the crypto-bigotry of the critics. To the extent that this view was held by the campaign or by Romney himself, it would have prevented them from realizing the power and legitimacy of these other criticisms, and hence taking whatever corrective actions were called for.
Michael Tuohey, the ticket agent who checked in Mohammed Atta on the morning of 9/11, claims to have been suspicious of Atta's demeanor when he processed him, but held back from accusing him on the basis of such a stereotype. If this was the case, and if he had ignored his hesitation and acted upon his suspicion, then the 9/11 attacks might not have been successful. Among the many happy consequences of such a counterfactual would be that anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigots would have far less reason to claim justification for their bigotry.
Also, opposition to immigration and to the loose enforcement of immigration laws has been associated with crypto-bigotry, and criticism in this vein was for that reason not taken seriously by most of those with the power to affect policy. During the years they were ignoring this criticism, illegal immigration increased greatly, to the point that public support for more restrictive immigration policies may have risen far above what it would have been otherwise.
13.) If bigotry can be fairly defined as an attitude unjustifiably intolerant of or disdainful towards an identifiable group of people, then the theory of crypto-bigotry is itself a form of bigotry. This is certainly not to say that adherents of the theory of crypto-bigotry are irredeemable: While, in modern society, there are so many disincentives against bigotry that the only possible reason for engaging in bigotry as more generally understood is great malevolence, there are at present few such disincentives against advocacy of the theory of crypto-bigotry, and many incentives working in its favor; therefore, there are reasons other than irredeemable malevolence for advocating the theory of crypto-bigotry. But this social acceptability does not mean that it is any less corrosive of society than the forms of bigotry it pretends to fight.
And I will say, every time I hear the prefix crypto
by simpson316
Thanks, simpson
by TomlinsonDouthat
And I'm honored to have anything I write bring Buckley to mind, even if it's just a prefix. ;)
Obama and applied crypto-bigotry
by TomlinsonDouthat
Well, so far this piece hasn't proven quite as provocative as I had expected. But if anybody's looking in, perhaps they might be interested in a bit of analysis on how the matters discussed above are playing out in the Obama campaign.
Consider the issues discussed in this post earlier today by Soren Dayton. Obama seems (to some) to have made a slight against McCain's age by saying that he's "losing his bearings," and this interpretation is bolstered by the fact, in Jake Tapper's words, that Obama would use "[l]anguage such as 'when she's feeling down' 'periodically' she 'launches attacks,'" attacking Hillary Clinton in a seemingly misogynistic manner.
As I note above, there are a number of hurdles to overcome before we can say with any certainty either 1.) that these reflect any sort of prejudice on the part of Obama personally or 2.) that by using these words his intention was to exploit such prejudices on the part of the electorate. However, with respect to the latter possibility, consider all this in light of "Bittergate":
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Obama clearly shows here that he subscribes to a particularly condescending version of the theory of crypto-bigotry. And so, believing that so many people are prone to such prejudice, it would not be surprising if he were to see it as being in his best political interest to play upon these perceived prejudices. And he might think that he would be justified in so doing, since 1.) he believes that he is the object of widespread bigotry, 2.) he likely believes that his opponents make a habit of doing likewise (and he might well be right with respect to the Clinton campaign, who are in a very similar situation and might find the very same logic tempting), and 3.) he has no intention of acting while in office in furtherance of such prejudices (but appealing to these prejudices might be the only way to put into office someone so virtuous as not to act upon them).
So, perversely, the belief that crypto-bigotry is widespread and must be fought can set up incentives to appeal to and hence foment crypto-bigotry. Whether he or anyone is acting upon these incentives is probably unknowable, but I think that the cause of social harmony would be better served if those incentives were removed.
rodguy911
The DBM has done a stellar job of sending the message out that anyone who even dares say anything or ventures an opinion, about any of the sacred cows of the dem party, nags, afro Americans, gays etc. is automatically branded a bigot.
Rush got into this a little bit today and likened Obama as the "exhalted" one who shall never have anything said about him or shall he ever be challenged.
By holding bama out as "too pure to be challenged" the DBM working in concert with the DNC can now automatically destroy anyone who even comes close to countering Bama's socialist bent ideas/ideals.
.............
There is a little by product of what the Obama candidacy has created which IMHO is a race based candidacy which is just fine with me.
He is now currently getting as high as 90% of the black vote in some state,NC ,for example.
If the reverse were ever true and any white candidate ever got that high or anywhere near that percentage of the white vote there would be hell to pay.
Bottom line is that courtesy of the Rev. Wright the Obama candidacy has become race based which will create a silent anti-vote against him and aggravate still many other voters on both sides of the aisle.
Just one more reason he can't possibly win. Lots of money or not.(that's another one, raise your hand if you think his contributions come from the little guy,)seeing few hands...
RG
I disagree that Obama's
by TomlinsonDouthat
I disagree that Obama's campaign is particularly race-based. He's doing awfully well in the black community, obviously, but no better than Democrats usually do in general elections, and even among Democratic primary voters as a class, I'd guess that blacks don't constitute a majority in any state (DC being an exception). He has a lot of supporters of all races, and he couldn't have made it this far without them.
You (and Rush) are right that Obama is held by many as exalted and anyone who criticizes him is presumed in some quarters to be a bigot. But I think that the same can be said of any Democrat in modern times. Bill Clinton, for instance, strongly implied that the mean people who were trying to impeach him were just doing it because he was too close to the black community.
that Bill and Hill got unjustly accused of racism since they regularly unjustly accused repubs of same as part of the dem party-msm playbook.
But I think a lot of the remaining reagan dems (mostly in midwestern and northern states - the r-d's in the south have been repubs for years) got a wake up call and resent being presumed racist and will now move to the gop.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
True, true
by TomlinsonDouthat
And speaking of the vast subject of Clintonian hypocrisy on race and all other matters, you might be interested, if you haven't read it, in Christopher Hitchens' No One Left to Lie to. The second chapter (Google seems to have most pages of it) makes an interesting case that would indicate that the accusations of racism weren't necessarily unjustified. I'm not sure I buy it, but it's important information to consider.
(Or it will be important, once the household pets of the superdelegates start to go missing, followed by a curious surge in their support for Hillary...)
I actually wrote a blog accusing the clintons of racist tactics
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2008/jan/26/obamas_sc_victory_sho...
but now see that they actually simply treated Obama as they would any white candidate. But they got stung by the same pc race police that regulary stings the gop
all unjustifiably.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Fort Marcie Park?
by TomlinsonDouthat
No, I was referring to Kathleen Willey. I know, there are just so many Clinton conspiracies to keep track of. And some of them were even true!
It's very tempting to
by Flagstaff
It's very tempting to conclude that because blacks consistently vote for Obama at a 90+% rate they are casting "race-tainted" votes at the very least. After thinking about this at some length, I've concluded that it's not racist, but simply pent-up human nature.
Given a plausible, realistic, viable black candidate after having the likes of John Edwards foisted upon them for years, it really is only human nature for black Democrats to want to vote for Obama, even if he's only marginally more black than I am. Heck, I can even understand why some black Republicans could be swayed.
As a nation, however, we need to be careful that we don't fall into a system that has one party that represents blacks and a different party to represent whites. If Obama were a better-grounded politician, I'd be less worried about what is happening.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
Absolutely
by TomlinsonDouthat
As a nation, however, we need to be careful that we don't fall into a system that has one party that represents blacks and a different party to represent whites.
Or even that there's only one party that is perceived as representing blacks. I think that it's a huge problem, important to the nation to a degree far disproportionate to the amount of votes my own preferred party might stand to gain. It's probably too much to get into the reasons for this right now, but part of the reason I wrote this was to contribute in some small way a means to convince black voters that the presumptions that some of them might have that the whites in the Republican party are out to get them or something similar are unfounded; and, therefore, that they have a real and meaningful choice in their votes.
and brilliant!
I say essentially the same thing this way:
I was inside the dem party my whole life until 2000. I watched dems become bigots slowly over time, as they cam to see themselves as the needed protectors of disabled victim dependant blacks. i watched repubs buy into the moral args of MLK and actually hire blacks that could make them a dime.
I watched lib dem lawyers talk a good game but never hire a black.
I watch the dems advocate race based laws. This is the essence of racism. I can't read hearts. I can read laws and actions.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Thanks, gc
by TomlinsonDouthat
You're too kind, as always.
You're right. Actions speak louder than words. And I've always thought that, if you look objectively at the actions of people in general, humanity comes out being a far more decent species than all that sort of moralistic posturing would suggest.
Certain streams of belief
by moderich
Romney's case is a perfect example of what you call "crypto-bigotry," although it's really nothing more than old-fashioned discrimination. The difficult part, of course, is getting an accurate measure of those who rejected Mitt on anti-Mormon grounds. In truth, we don't know, but it's probably a small percentage. That's where the conspiracy theory angle works, because the extent of the problem is largely a guess on the part of each individual.
As for discriminating against those who discriminate, the boundaries are the same for both parties. You may believe what you will, communicate what you will, but you may not prevent another from believing or communicating their will:
Religion and Freedom
Mitt Romney, Townhall, May 8, 2008If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief--to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience--it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Thanks for the link, by the
by TomlinsonDouthat
Thanks for the link, by the way, moderich. I hadn't seen that speech, but it's a pretty interesting one—and it might be a little bit of grist for the mill of those inclined to speculate about Romney's plans for the future.
I hope my summary gets you your provocative wish!
ditto to all you said 'hat
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
you can't prove it, but you can blame everything on it, and you can name-call those who don't agree with it.
how convenient
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Democracy said it months ago...
smile
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
A striking parallel
by TomlinsonDouthat
I hadn't thought of that, but it's a very interesting analogy.
I've actually been doing some thinking lately about how closely much of Democratic/liberal thought these days resembles conspiracy theories. In addition to the conspiracist aspect of the TCB mentioned above, there's all the talk about Bush lying us into wars for oil/Israel (presumably at the bidding of a vast conspiracy) and all the influence that evil corporations wield by virtue of their employees' hundred-dollar political donations. It's rarely put that bluntly by mainstream Democrats, but I think that the conspiratorial mindset—and all the attendant big, bad, imaginary bogeymen—is not that far from the surface from mainstream liberal rhetoric. Maybe I'll have to incorporate the global warming angle into this nascent theory. I'll have to think about it. Thanks for bringing it up.
You have to admit that
by Flagstaff
You have to admit that Global Warming Theory has a lot of the conspiracy theorist approach to it:
It (AGW) isn't just obviously true.
It is steeped in technical jargon and much of it has to be taken "on faith."
Those who disagree may be labeled either stupid, ignorant, part of the conspiracy, or "in denial."
Many statements made in its support are either unprovable, or are flat-out wrong, but not easily proven so.
Much of it is opinion stated as fact.
Its claims are so complicated as to be virtually unfalsifiable in the short run.
If it's true, it involves a huge network of entities acting either in concert or separately but in parallel, either intentionally or by common goals, and the only way to stop it is if the whole population becomes "educated" and "true believers" and we "change our ways." (In this respect, AGW belief is more of a religion than a belief in a conspiracy.)
Those common "conspiratorial" goals are based on greed, and hurt the general public.
When something happens that would tend to disprove early claims made in support of the theory, either the claims are amended, or a corollary to the theory is created.
I closed with this one because about a month ago on this site (I'd have to search for it to find just where) I commented to the effect that I expected that there would be future claims made that certain new climatic events "supported" AGW theory, even though those events hadn't been predicted by the theory. That very thing happened this last week, as the claim was made that the Burmese cyclone and others this year were the result of AGW.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
Awesome
by TomlinsonDouthat
I've meaning to get myself up to speed on the global warming issue. From what you say, it sounds like it might be more entertaining than I expected.
[Oh, and sorry for the delay in my responses. My power and cable have been flickering due to an obviously AGW-related storm.]
Be nice if someone
by Flagstaff
Be nice if someone understood it. Come to think about it, I believe I made those un-linked comments on another site.
Anyway, I have been wondering why our Republican leadership has decided to capitulate to the AGW crowd precisely at the moment that contrary evidence is starting to roll in and pile up on the shore. Their timing couldn't have been worse.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
Equality of outcomes
by sinz52
This notion of crypto-bigotry gets a lot of ammunition from the modern emphasis on identity politics and group rights, and the failed attempts to ensure equality of outcomes of those groups.
In truth, each individual human being is unique: Each of us has a unique combination of talents, flaws, life experiences and lifestyle. But this collides head on with the notion of group rights.
As a middle-class white engineer living in the suburbs, I probably have more in common with some middle-class black engineer living in the suburbs, than I do with some poor white coal miner living in West Virginia. But that collides head on with the idea that we are all primarily members of a race or an ethnicity or a gender.
As a result, when this rather arbitrary lumping of us into races, ethnicities and genders is done, and then those cohorts are compared by income, health and other measures, inevitably unequal outcomes are noticed somewhere. And then those inequalities are attributed to some kind of covert discrimination or discriminatory attitude.
The result of all this has been to create a whole new make-work industry for social scientists: Gather together all the data you can on entire populations. Classify people by race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Then compare those cohorts one against another for various performance measures like salary, life expectancy, etc. Crunch the numbers on a computer. The moment you find a statistically significant difference between any two cohorts, call a press conference and announce you've found "discrimination" at work.
The laws of probability guarantee that such differences will be found somewhere, and thus guarantee permanent employment for social scientists.
I made it all the way
by Flagstaff
I made it all the way through! Good stuff!
About points 3 and 4: Logical conclusion. Nails down that part of your thesis.
Point 5: Starts out like the conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment that disproved the idea of an "ether." But your conclusion doesn't follow, unless I'm misunderstanding it. You say
"Any aspersions on the motives of the alleged crypto-bigots would be logically unsupportable until their position had been demonstrated to be utterly absurd, and if such absurdity were established, then any aspersions on their motives would be unnecessary. This, however, is not the way things usually work, which leads one to suspect that the motives of those making accusations of crypto-bigotry are something other than fighting the policies advocated by those they accuse."
It would lead me to believe that they were indeed fighting those policies (else, why the dispute at all?), but they were fighting them not with logic but by an attempt to discredit the proponent of the policies.
Point 10: I think you have proven that the crypto-bigotry theory is actually a particular conspiracy theory. It's just a bit different from what we usually think of as a "conspiracy."
Point 12: "Those who make arguments resting on the theory of crypto-bigotry often seek to remove certain ideas from serious political discourse." I think that's the primary reason for the existence of the theory in the first place, combined with marginalizing those who are ostensibly part of the "crypto-bigotry crowd."
Bravo!
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
Thanks so much, Flagstaff
by TomlinsonDouthat
Both for your kind words and for making it all the way through. (I really should try to figure out a way to divide these up into more digestible chunks!)
With respect to your comment on point 5: I should've added a "merely" in there, as in, "which leads one to suspect that the motives of those making accusations of crypto-bigotry are something other than [merely] fighting the policies advocated by those they accuse." What I was trying to get at was that their motives for doing this are likely tied up to concerns about protecting and inflating their own social status as explored in points 8 and 9. But I don't doubt that they sincerely believe in the policy positions implicated in the crypto-bigotry kabuki.
And on your comment on point 12: I do think that that's central to this business, and I think that that's also where a whole lot of harm is done. It's not healthy in a democracy for certain, plausible positions from polite discourse. I think that it can only tend to skew the whole of our political discourse, if the situation is allowed to continue long enough.
Obviously, there is a line to be drawn. There can be no justification for advocating genocide, say. But I think that our politics would be much healthier if we were to allow as much as we can on this side of the line and presume the decency of those who advocate even for greatly incorrect positions, until they clearly prove themselves unworthy of that presumption.
Interesting that you should
by Flagstaff
Interesting that you should say "There can be no justification for advocating genocide" in the same blog that also has some serious comments on AGW.
If we carry the arguments of the AGW proponents to their logical conclusion, a reduction in the numbers of humans on Earth will be their "final solution." (Talk about the "euphemism treadmill.")
After all, the need for more and more power creation, which inevitably (given the "green" prohibition of nuclear power) leads to exponentially increasing carbon emissions, is directly tied to the numbers of humans either being born or emerging from pre-industrial societies into the modern world. It's very hard to imagine modern-day Americans willingly giving up their freedoms of mobility and power consumption, so a reduction in their numbers is the "efficient" solution.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
Wow
by TomlinsonDouthat
Final solution? Just wow.
I wish I could muster some skepticism for what you say, but I'm in the middle of reading Liberal Fascism, so it's a little hard.
"Liberal Fascism"
by Flagstaff
How is the book? I saw it being flogged on Glenn Beck's show a while back, and the premise is fascinating. I've even used some of the fleeting memories of what the author said that day in some comments here.
Hope those "wows" don't acronymically mean "Watch out, Wacko" alert.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
Wow in the complimentary sense
by TomlinsonDouthat
And Liberal Fascism is great, so far. I'm about halfway through. I had a number of quibbles towards the beginning. For instance, Goldberg's trying to conflate Progressivism/liberalism with fascism and communism, which works in a lot of ways. But a lot of his thesis in the early part of the book rests upon the fact that Wilson went to such extreme, fascistic lengths to crack down on American communists, which would seem to contradict his thesis in a way, and which contradiction he hasn't addressed so far.
But I'm now on the chapter addressing Progressivism and eugenics, and with all the evidence he marshals on this, it's becoming clear that my quibbles are mere quibbles: He's hit on something big. Not having finished it yet, I still recommend it.
Thanks. I'll look for it in
by Flagstaff
Thanks. I'll look for it in next year's book sales.
It's now Bedtime for Bonzo.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
Oh, and the missing "merely"
by Flagstaff
Oh, and the missing "merely" clears up the confusion. Thanks.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
No, thank you
by TomlinsonDouthat
I've updated the original post to make sure it's clear. Thanks for bringing it up.
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
Like other fundamentalist Christians
by DrJaysonFosterCivil, one aside if I might
by tcgeolcivil truth, I disagree with you, read on:
by Cheetah772no hijack
by JvetteLooks like I'm speaking to a ghost
by civil truthYour clarification is duly noted
by civil truthReggieh, I have to disagree with you key argument here
by civil truthReggieh , remain wherever you like. However
by Blue Collar MusePoint Of Clarification
by DrJaysonFosterI'll buy that.
by shooflyguy68I don't trust that the source tells the truth
by Neil StevensSo you don't like the source,
by shooflyguy68yes he does
by dglennOops
by Neil StevensTom Rooney
by Neil StevensConservative does not equal Christian
by shooflyguy68Do any
by dglenn
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
That's a lot to digest.
Fascinating read.
Now also found at The Minority Report