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.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.