Who We Are

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the darling of the liberal movement, turned away the Jews during the Holocaust, great hordes of Americans did not rally against the action. A few (and, sadly, only a few) of the Jews protested but they got little support from their fellows.

When mass killings arose in Africa there were no calls to open the gates to immigrants nor major efforts to save them. And there have been many times when we have established quotas on immigrants from some parts of the world in order to favor those we consider more “desirable.”

Times have changed though, and we're quicker to react to whatever we think is wrong. We've gone from inaction to action. We're virtuous. It doesn't cost much, though if it did we might act more deliberately.

We are now in the midst of an attempt by some jihadists to make the world in their image, and they are having greater success than we had imagined. In large parts of the world there is a call among Muslims for the imposition of sharia law – often on all citizens, not only Muslims. Perhaps that's not the way we read their doctrines, but it's the way they do. And their immigration will only increase this situation. In Europe, the number of Muslims has been increasing markedly in recent years and they have become an important political force. (It's interesting that refugees prefer Christian to Muslim countries, either because it's safer or because it serves their purpose to do so.)

That, however, does not change who we are. Indeed, who are we? We are a nation of immigrants (and we mustn't turn our backs on those of the present). Even Native Americans came from elsewhere, if far longer ago than we and our ancestors. We have, at least at some times, welcomed the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” But we have always preferred that immigrants be like us. We've always been a racist society – all societies are. We're reluctant to change, irrespective of the reasons for doing so. We speak of diversity but we look for assimilation. “E pluribus unum.” We're racist and it's now fashionable to express it openly.

Reality and fashion, however, don't justify racism. But they also don't justify the protests of professional activists who are always looking for a way to fault what is, in the name of something they claim is better. Their goal is to make others feel the guilt they feel, although theirs often results from being too well off. They grieve for the “oppressed” without considering the implications of their acts. They act first and don't bother asking questions. They are always looking for some failure of their country, something to protest. And they always side with the victim, irrespective of whether the “victim” is right and deserves support. They exude virtue. And they can then walk away and seek a new cause.

The issue at the moment is immigration policy, which has been questioned by the new administration and which it is trying to change. Even before any attempts were made to do so, however, there were protests, not discussion, of the proposals. The idea that immigrants should enter our country legally was viewed as un-American. That's not “who we are.” It's in violation of American values. We may have needed a rule of law and orderly procedures in the past, but times have changed and we have no right to reject anyone.

And the idea that there has to be better screening of those coming from countries that have already exported terrorists to other nations is little short of profiling and stereotyping. (Some of those nations are, themselves, considering ways to stem the flow of refugees, fearing both terrorism and a change in the nature of their societies.)

But there's a problem. The protesters, despite an agenda which places the process above the issue, have a valid complaint this time, when they oppose a non-existent immigration policy which emphasizes unconsidered (worse – ill-considered) actions, apparently resulting from whim rather than careful evaluation. Thought and preparation are not the concerns – publicity and shock are. So this appears to be following a pattern of hurried moves more designed to attract attention than to accomplish the new administration's stated goals.

Sadly, this is who we are. In an age of social media we are quick to advertise ourselves and to draw attention to everything we think and do – whether it is of any consequence or not. We're quick to act – to try to solve whatever we see as injustice or as a problem of any sort. The protesters ride the high horse of fashionable liberalism: the rejection of anything with which they disagree and they refuse to accept the results of the election, even if it is constitutionally correct. Consideration and compromise are no longer part of the equation. Only action of some type. And we're quick to react to everything, often without concern about whether our reaction is likely to be of benefit or not. “Don't just stand there … ” We do something because by doing something we convince ourselves that we are doing good.

It's not a phenomenon limited to our country. It's world-wide. But, at the moment, I'm interested in our own difficulty. We have a President who is more interested in ego and shock than well thought-out policy, and a “loyal opposition” that is more interested in opposition than in loyalty and accomplishment. And both are who we are. We say and do whatever we consider right at the moment – “ the devil take the hindmost.” “Full speed ahead.” “My way or the highway.” There will be times when each side is correct, but neither will convince the other of any error. And when we talk, whether on Facebook, Twitter, or whatever – even by action – it's loud, immediate, and unfiltered or tempered by planning.

And the outlook?

Things will get worse. As everything gets faster and as we increase in our certainty that we're right and we'd better act immediately, it's inevitable that we'll be more divided We're not exceptional. We're like everyone else. We'll do what we consider right. Even if it's wrong. And even if it kills us. That's who we are. We're pig-headed people. All of us.