Look At Me – I'm A Liberal

“I'll be all in clover,

And when they look you over,

I'll be the proudest fellow

In the Easter Parade.”ⁱ

Irving Berlin was a sexist. He also wrote:

“The girl that I marry will have to be

As soft and as pink as a nursery.

The girl I call my own

Will wear satin and laces and smell of cologne.”ⁱⁱ

His view of women obviously was that they were people who were created to give pride to men, and to be the “soft” and “pink” possessions you could find in a nursery.

That perspective, though, was not unique. In the Book of Esther, King Achashverosh wished to parade his wife, Vashti, in front of his guests at a party. Even today it is a common practice for men who can do so to marry and display a “trophy wife.”

But if men have always whistled at beautiful women, women have cherished that attention and eagerly participated in beauty contests and pageants, vying with each other to establish superiority among those who dare to consider themselves peers or betters. And the status of wife and mother are still sought by the majority of women. Whether that preference is inborn or the result of our culture is not the point. What is more significant is that Berlin's views were the predominant ones – at least until recent years. He was saying in a poetic way what almost everyone believed.

Nowadays there is a totally different view of sex. (I'll pursue this issue further in a future essay.)  What used to be a private affair, both in terms of people and practices, is now flaunted in the media. Free sex is good.ⁱⁱⁱ LGBTQ organizations and their members are the darlings of the courts and of the press, and failure to laud and to respond positively to the demands of those once viewed as displaying deviant behavior is evidence of prejudice. Not surprisingly, there are many who eat it up. They may loudly proclaim their own conventional sexuality, but applaud those with appetites different from theirs. They kvell^iv at each report of someone “coming out of the closet” and praise his (or her) courage for doing so publicly. They shep naches.^v They feel his pain. The Constitution may not have recognized this group of oppressed people, but they do. They are sensitive to the feelings of those who are in distress, and they want the world to know it.

They're also so understanding of the feelings of others that they identify with those having with gender dysphoria.^vi From their perspective, anyone who doesn't see things their way is displaying evidence of prejudice.^vii There is no room for difference of opinion; they are sensitive and understanding, and those who see things differently are biased. With the granting to school children with gender dysphoria of the “right” to use the bathroom of their choice,^viii notwithstanding the feelings of those already using them, the courts are giving, to the confused, “rights” which take precedence over those of people who are certain,^ix and whoever disagrees with that approach is reactionary and insensitive. He (or she) is probably a religious zealot – a fundamentalist or some other form of hypocrite. He certainly has no concern about the views or feelings of others – only his own. After all, the dysphoric's defender is open-minded, as opposed to someone who thinks differently.

“Look at me.” Advertising their virtue is all they have to do. Once everyone else is aware of their bravery they can move on to another windmill.

For example, there is another situation in which some people seem to place their own feelings and views above those of others, though they claim the opposite and take pride in flaunting it. They make a point of adopting children who are not of their own race. At times they will adopt several children of different races. And at times they do so even though they are fertile and could have children of their own.

There are two messages^x that their actions declare: first that while others simply don't care, they are concerned over the sad fate of children who are not being reared by their own parents, and they are generous, brave, and sensitive to the needs of those children; and second, they are above making distinctions between people based on race or ethnicity. Indeed, they choose to advertise that disdain by a public act. They select the children they adopt because of their race, something which everyone else must notice.^xi It's a brave act and they are making a statement.

However they may see themselves, though, and whatever message they want to express about their views, they do not seem to take into consideration the feelings of the child, who will be reared by those parents and who will have to introduce them to his friends of all races. It will be obvious to him, and to them, that they are “other,” that he's adopted. And however they may try, they will not be able to teach him the customs and the heritage of his own race and those of his birth parents. His loyalties will forever be split, and he will live neither in the world of those who bore him nor those who reared him.^xii But the parent will have demonstrated to the world that he cares. As William Voegeli^xiii noted in The Case Against Liberal Compassion,^xiv “ … liberals care about helping much less than they care about caring.” He also notes,^xv “If you’re trying to prove your heart is in the right place, it isn’t.”

That's the problem. The details of the cases I described are very different,^xvi but in these instances someone was trying to show the world that he cared about the suffering of others and proudly he did his part to right the wrong. His heart was in the right place. But of course he was more interested in displaying his own sensitivity than looking for the best solution to the problem – especially if that way his own moral excellence would not be appreciated by all.

Our concerns and our culture have changed since Irving Berlin's day, and we are quick to criticize our predecessors' lack of sensitivity as we brag about our own. But what we're really doing is advertising ourselves as the purveyors of the current culture as we denigrate the culture of the past. And as we ignore the fact that our descendents will criticize our society and us for all our “isms.”

Next episode: “They The People” – It's time for a change? Well, yes and no.

I        From “As Thousands Cheer,” 1935.

ii       “Annie Get Your Gun,” 1946.

iii      Although women who charge for it are the victims of men.

iv       Boast, take pride, gloat. According to the OED this is US slang. I learned it as a Yiddish expression which focused more specifically on taking pride.

v        Another Yiddish expression. It's similar in meaning to kvell. However you usually shep naches over the accomplishments of a family member (usually a child) and bask in the reflected glory.

vi       Presumably if you “Enjoy Being a Girl” (“Flower Drum Song,” 1958) you have gender euphoria.

           Unless you're a boy.

vii      From their perspective G-d got it wrong, and they are obliged to set things right.

viii    See http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/31/22520422-bathroom-ban-violated-transgender-students-rights-court

ix       Actually a girl doesn't have a specific right to use the Girls' Room nor a boy the Boys' Room, so there's no competition of rights. How that child or his parents feel is a secondary issue.

x        Three if they're fertile. They also show that they're concerned about overpopulation, and would prefer to adopt children already here than bring any more into being. (Incidentally, homosexual unions are a good way to limit population growth. Perhaps that's why they support them.  More on that subject in a few weeks.)

xi       Actually they do make distinctions between people based on their race or ethnicity. Their affirmative action in child selection is evidence of that.

xii      Perhaps his rejection by members of both races is an indictment of our society, but it is a reflection of the reality of the life we live. There is prejudice among all groups, and ignoring it puts those we love at risk. The same difficulty exists for the children of intermarried couples who also face prejudice and identity problems.

xiii     Senior Editor, Claremont Review of Books.

xiv      “Imprimis,” Volume 23, Number 10, October, 2014.

xv       Citing Philosophy Professor David Schmidtz

xvi     They're just two random points in the long spectrum of advocacy for the oppressed. Many others could have been cited and it's likely the reader is aware of some. But in these and in others, the guilt-ridden have no higher priority than standing up for what is politically correct. They care.