establishment liberalism's turn

There have been so many moments, lately, that teach us about American liberalism. That so much of what we've learned is depressing is, I guess, just life. But Wisconsin, the Ryan plan and entitlement fight, Libya, the deepening cult of Obama, and finally, yesterday's big news-- each is revealing.

You have undoubtedly seen the rising chorus of scolding progressives, angry that those to their left have the temerity to insist on the valence of liberal morality even when person in question is a Very Bad Man. Whatever the philosophical justification for using liberalism as an excuse for blood lust and nationalism, the reason is clear: this is their turn. This is the professional liberal's opportunity to wave the flag, to celebrate violence-- there were fireworks in San Francisco-- to engage in the kind of patriotic conformity that they have been told for a decade is the duty of all decent people. This is their turn to feel tough, and anyone asking for discrimination or pause makes a convenient target. I've never been made to feel less than tough by a conservative critic. I've never felt like I have to showily demonstrate my willingness to lob ordnance when it's necessary. It seems most DC liberals do, and if I had to hazard a guess, it's because they aren't particularly confident in the moral calculus that underwrites their ideology.

You can see a lot of this tension in the way that liberals calling for the righteousness of violence are harping on the (unintentionally) misrepresented quote from Martin Luther King. They say to themselves that they are decent liberal people, and they want MLK to be their hero, but they are congenitally unable to live with genuine radicalism. So they take his message and they water it down; they make it palatable for the Very Serious mindset by taking what was unequivocal in him and rendering it a toothless, centrist mess. This is the way of all who radically ask for peace-- King, Gandhi, Jesus, the Buddha. Each insists on what is precisely not assimilable to the mass ideology of political violence.

So you have people like Adam Elkus, who performs a service for DC liberals by attempting to undercut the radical nonviolence at the heart of King's message. This post has been shared and twittered endlessly; that's service blogging  for you. You'll note that he harps on the fact that the quote being sent around is a misquote, but note that only the first line is misattributed, and that the elementary idea of that first line was stated with nothing resembling ambiguity by King in Strength to Love: "no one should rejoice at the death or defeat of a human being." Seems rather clear to me, but then all of the great pacifists resisted the mushy excuse making of the regular order. When you ask for the actual commitment to nonviolence that King stood for-- when you know aikido in combat-- there are consequences.

Nobody has to get on board with my views; they are marginal for a reason, I guess. But I wish they would stop pretending that people who are not their heroes are, that people would stop, for example, emailing Andrew Sullivan, announcing that they are pacifist Buddhists, and defending the people who danced in the streets in the name of an event that killed five people. I assure you: the Buddha would not look kindly on putting depleted uranium into anyone's skull. Not even the bad man. (Whose Grave Would Jesus Piss On?) I feel about these liberals trying to square the circle of holding MLK to be a hero while supporting remorseless celebration of human death the way I feel about neoliberals who listen to Dead Prez. Feel however you feel, but please, recognize the incongruity, and perhaps look for new heroes. I recognized the genesis of the misquotes because I have had Strength to Love embedded in my consciousness since I was thirteen years old. It's important to remain conversant with King's actual words, not just the pale imitation of him that exists in the popular consciousness. If even the left is incapable of remembering the actual legacy of Martin Luther King, his voice has been silenced.

I also ask that any so engaged in this embittered campaigning against those who ask for pause at this moment consider context. There were thousands in the streets the other night. There are many hundreds of prominent Internet celebrities who are justifying and celebrating and expressing glee. How many are there of us who are asking for restraint, who insist that the expression of sentiments like "rot in hell" is antithetical to the liberal character? A couple dozen? The asymmetry of annoyance should be instructive. This is part and parcel with the common tendency among establishment liberals to dislike conservatives but hate the left. How often does the average professional liberal break bread with a conservative or libertarian? And how often with a socialist, or a pacifist? It tells you all you need to know about the American left, and why it is the way it is.

I wish someone could puncture the bubble, because what these liberals need now is precisely to feel the discomfort that comes when cherished ideas about the world and the self are brought into conflict with each other. That tension is the womb of the liberal project. But unfortunately, establishment liberalism has meticulously crafted a cone of silence around itself, precisely to prevent the uncomfortable questions that principle engenders.

Update: The number of posts now calling bullshit on that quote, without pointing out what Martin Luther King actually had to say on the matter, grows and grows. Megan had the good excuse of going first, but each new post on the matter gets less and less defensible. Because, again, liberal Internet media is run by DC liberals made uncomfortable by King's sentiment. It's remarkable how people can call bullshit on others without actually checking their own bullshit, how people who are paid to assemble facts can't bother to check them. Please-- professional journalists, do your job.