The Cultural and Political Wars, Part II

Bring back the 1950's blacklist? Debra Messing and Eric McCormack star/starred (I don't know, I never watched it) in the TV series "Will & Grace." McCormack Tweeted: "Hey @THR (The Hollywood Reporter), kindly report on everyone attending this event (a Trump fundraiser in Hollywood), so the rest of us can be clear about who we don't wanna work with. Thx." Messing added: "Please print a list of all attendees." They were rebuked by none other than Whoopi Goldberg, who had to remind them of the blacklisting of the 1950s. "...a lot of really good people were accused of stuff. Nobody cared whether it was true or not. They were accused. And they lost their right to work...In this country, people can vote for who they want to." The two actors then backpedaled, claiming they just wanted transparency, and it had nothing to do with keeping people from working. Right - "so the rest of us can be clear about who we don't wanna work with." Got it.

Messing makes more noise. Recently, Messing "liked" a church sign that referred to Blacks who voted for Trump as being "mentally ill." But don't worry. Messing will not be fired like Roseanne Barr was. No, Barr was a conservative, and Messing is a liberal. Therefore, it is permissible to suggest that Blacks are too stupid to think for themselves; and if they voted for Trump then what else could it be but mental illness? Do not expect Messing to be accused of racism.

Of course Democrats support the Courts. Or do they? Five US Senators filed a "friend of the court" (amicus curiae) brief in a gun control case at the Supreme Court. The five Democrats (Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, Dick Durbin and Kirsten Gillibrand) offered this: "The Supreme Court is not well. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics." That looks like these Senators using politics in an effort to influence, nay, threaten, the Court. The Wall Street Journal (8/16/19) aptly referred to the brief as an "enemy of the court brief."

Are your ideas good enough? Molly Worthen is a journalist, and has a PhD in the history of American religion. She penned an Op-Ed in the 9/1/19 New York Times, titled "Can We Guarantee Intellectual Diversity?" She opined that the allegations made by the web site "The Evil Empire on Campus" are "laughably overblown." I did not research all their allegations. However, a quick Google search shows that a number of studies of major universities reflect an overwhelming percentage of Democratic professors over Republican professors. Anywhere from 10 to 1 to 13 to 1, with the ratio being much higher if the math and science departments are excluded. Worthen: "Not all ideas deserve admission to academic discussion on equal terms, if at all." I can agree with that. But would we agree on which ideas should be excluded?

Ah, yes - assumptions. Worthen explains the academic method: "Explain your terms, identify your assumptions, admit the possibility that you could change your mind." Sounds right. However, the attack on assumptions has often been an attack on religion, Western Civilization and - yes - what makes America great.

The end of wars? Stephen Wertheim had an Op-Ed in the 9/14/19 New York Times, titled: "The Only Way to End 'Endless War.'" His policy proposal? "...end America's commitment to armed supremacy and embrace a world of pluralism and peace." Do we all get to hold hands and sing Kumbaya? I get the fact that the US has entered into wars that good people have opposed on legitimate grounds. But, let us not be naive. We still live in a very dangerous world. Pluralism and peace? Is that like Russia taking over the Crimea and part of the Ukraine? Or propping up the dictator in Syria? Or threatening Israel to not attack any further installations in Syria? Russia now supports the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah axis. Russia has extended its reach into Africa and Latin America. Let's not forget Russia's cyber attacks against other government's elections.

And what about China? While Russia uses both hard power (its military) as well as soft power (economic influence), China has been busy extending its reach around the globe through soft power (economics and culture and education). China has been sending money to foreign universities and think tanks, and "training" foreign journalists. The goal, of course, is to encourage support for China and its leadership and policies, while also encouraging self-censorship by the recipients of Chinese aid. Meanwhile, China has been rapidly building its military, and working to develop new weapons systems.

What about the others? There are plenty of bad actors, not just Russia and China. Iran. North Korea. The countless Islamic terrorist organizations. I must ask Mr. Wertheim, what pluralism? What peace?

Let's end with Mattis. James Mattis is the former Secretary of Defense, and a retired Marine Corps General. In his recent book, he discusses what he sees as our two main foreign policy threats - Russia and China. No disagreement there. He also discusses our two greatest internal threats. One is our ever-growing national debt. I have said for years that neither party cares about your money. But the second is perhaps the most disturbing of all: "it's the lack of friendliness, it's the increasing contempt I see between Americans who have different opinions...If we want this country to survive, we're going to have to work together...That's the way a democracy is set up." I wholeheartedly agree. I am just not sure how we will get past differences about the fundamental nature of what America is and should be.