Jump to content


Oikophobia - WSJ


Recommended Posts

From the Wall Street Journal on 8/27/2010

 

 

JAMES TARANTO

If you think it's offensive for a Muslim group to exploit the 9/11 atrocity, you're an anti-Muslim bigot and un-American to boot. It is a claim so bizarre, so twisted, so utterly at odds with common sense that it's hard to believe anyone would assert it except as some sort of dark joke. Yet for the past few weeks, it has been put forward, apparently in all seriousness, by those who fancy themselves America's best and brightest, from the mayor of New York all the way down to Peter Beinart.

 

What accounts for this madness?Charles Krauthammer notes a pattern:

 

Promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Krauthammer portrays this as a cynical game: "Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. . . . What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument."

 

But this has its limits as a political strategy. Krauthammer writes that "the Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November," and no one will credit him for boldness in that prediction. Some may disagree with his reckoning as to the reason for that likely loss: that "a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them."

 

But can anyone argue that a show of contempt is a winning political strategy? The question answers itself and implies that the contempt is genuine.

 

What is the nature of this contempt? In part it is the snobbery of the cognitive elite, exemplified by a recent New York Times Web column by Timothy Egan called "Building a Nation of Know-Nothings"--or by the viciousness directed at Sarah Palin, whose folksy demeanor and state-college background seem terribly déclassé not just to liberals but to a good number of conservatives in places like New York City.

 

In more cerebral moments, the elitists of the left invoke a kind of Marxism Lite to explain away opinions and values that run counter to their own. Thus Barack Obama's notorious remark to the effect that economic deprivation embitters the proles, so that they cling to guns and religion. (Ironically, Obama recently said through a spokesman that he is Christian.) Here's Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's labor secretary, explaining "The Anatomy of Intolerance" to readers of TalkingPointsMemo.com:

 

Many Americans (and politicians who [sic] the polls) don't want a mosque at Manhattan's Ground Zero. . . .

Where is all this coming from?

It's called fear. When people are deeply anxious about holding on to their homes, their jobs, and their savings, they look for someone to blame. And all too often they find it in "the other"--in people who look or act differently, who come from foreign lands, who have what seem to be strange religions, who cross our borders illegally. . . .

Economic fear is the handmaiden of intolerance. It's used by demagogues who redirect the fear and anger toward people and groups who aren't really to blame but are easy scapegoats.

So if some Americans are afraid of people "who have what seem to be strange religions," it must be a totally irrational reaction to "economic insecurity." It couldn't possibly have anything to do with an act of mass murder committed in the name of the religion in question.

 

And Reich doesn't just fail to see the obvious. He dehumanizes his fellow Americans by treating their values, feelings and opinions as no more than reflexive reactions to material conditions. Americans in fact are a very tolerant people. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was no serious backlash against Muslims. What makes them angry--what makes us angry--is the bigotry of the elites.

 

The Ground Zero mosque is an affront to the sensibilities of ordinary Americans. "The center's association with 9/11 is intentional and its location is no geographic coincidence," as the Associated Press has reported. That Americans would find this offensive is a matter of simple common sense. The liberal elites cannot comprehend common sense, and, incredibly, they think that's a virtue. After all, common sense is so common.

 

The British philosopher Roger Scruton has coined a term to describe this attitude: oikophobia. Xenophobia is fear of the alien; oikophobia is fear of the familiar: "the disposition, in any conflict, to side with 'them' against 'us', and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably 'ours.' " What a perfect description of the pro-mosque left.

 

Scruton was writing in 2004, and his focus was on Britain and Europe, not America. But his warning about the danger of oikophobes--whom he amusingly dubs "oiks"--is very pertinent on this side of the Atlantic today, and it illuminates how what are sometimes dismissed as mere matters of "culture" tie in with economic and social policy:

 

The oik repudiates national loyalties and defines his goals and ideals
against
the nation, promoting transnational institutions over national governments, accepting and endorsing laws that are imposed on us from on high by the EU or the UN, though without troubling to consider Terence's question, and defining his political vision in terms of universal values that have been purified of all reference to the particular attachments of a real historical community.

The oik is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against local chauvinism. And it is the rise of the oik that has led to the growing crisis of legitimacy in the nation states of Europe. For we are seeing a massive expansion of the legislative burden on the people of Europe, and a relentless assault on the only loyalties that would enable them voluntarily to bear it. The explosive effect of this has already been felt in Holland and France. It will be felt soon everywhere, and the result may not be what the oiks expect.

There is one important difference between the American oik and his European counterpart. American patriotism is not a blood-and-soil nationalism but an allegiance to a country based in an idea of enlightened universalism. Thus our oiks masquerade as--and may even believe themselves to be--superpatriots, more loyal to American principles than the vast majority of Americans, whom they denounce as "un-American" for feeling an attachment to their actual country as opposed to a collection of abstractions.

 

Yet the oiks' vision of themselves as an intellectual aristocracy violates the first American principle ever articulated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . ."

 

This cannot be reconciled with the elitist notion that most men are economically insecure bitter clinging intolerant bigots who need to be governed by an educated elite. Marxism Lite is not only false; it is, according to the American creed, self-evidently false. That is why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting.

LINK

Link to comment

Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

 

Where was the Tea Party in 2001? In 2005? I agree with the former, but too many Tea Party people are bigots. It's a soft bigotry. Under the carpet. Because who are the people of the Tea Party?

 

 

They used to be the most polite people in America. They worked hard and raised families and embraced the opportunities given to them to carve out a way of life in the middle of this country. Their way of life used to be the way of America. America used to be The Waltons. It used to be white. And these Tea Party people are now scared. The Tea Party is an expression of weakness.

 

Because the reality now is that America isn't all white bread. White is not only not propriety anymore, but the trend in everything is away from white. It's about diversity. It's about our common culture and what people find cool and what people find sexy. Which isn't white. It's about values that people have now and what the new generation embraces. It isn't of days past when the white nuclear family was the be-all objective and status of Americans. Different views, different ideas, and new cultures have fused into how we define ourselves, and it isn't white.

 

Tea Party is a statement against change, not a statement for change. It's a hurried form of nostalgia that these people want to live in. They are jealous and contemptuous that they are no longer socially relevant. That people don't care about God or the "sanctity" of an antiquated thing called marriage. That people tolerate gays or even welcome their contribute to our culture. That biology and science have taken off the blinders of senseless "tradition".

 

The funny (well, not really) part of the Tea Party is that they are just waking up to this reality now. The "liberal elite" - stupid vilification if I ever heard one - have always looked down on them for being simple, unworldly, and narrow. But they didn't care. They raised God-fearing families in vinyl-clad homes and life went on. It took a Black President to show them that much of the country finds their existence contemptuous and irrelevant. And now they're angry and bitter. It isn't the "liberal elite". It is the elite everywhere. It's the conservative capitalist bankers laughing their asses off that the Tea Party members want to give them more freedom after screwing them over with mortgages and securities fraud. It's more than the elite though. It's progress vs. stagnation, essentially.

 

I started out as a Tea Party supporter because I'm a capitalist and I dislike how overbearing the government has become in our lives. That is what it started out as. But it quickly got hijacked by racists, by religious zealots, by moronic Fox News drones, and the whole thing has not only made me disillusioned in the Tea Party movement, but the people of this country. I never liked the liberals of New York for their economic and foreign policy rhetoric, but I have come to realize that I also don't like the conservatives either.

 

**** People.

Link to comment

If you in any way think that this building isn't a direct attack on America by "the Muslims" (one homogeneous body) then you're an "oik" who hates America and Americans?

 

Makes perfect sense to me. laugh2.gif

 

 

As usual, you make no attempt at dialogue.

 

No, he's pointing out the hypocrisy of the article.

 

Person for mosque: Argument "A"

Person against mosque: Argument "B"

"Liberal Elite": Argument B people are bigots and we should ignore them

Article: People who against argument B are out of touch and hate America

Link to comment

If you in any way think that this building isn't a direct attack on America by "the Muslims" (one homogeneous body) then you're an "oik" who hates America and Americans?

 

Makes perfect sense to me. laugh2.gif

 

 

As usual, you make no attempt at dialogue.

Actually, I've posted more of my own words in this thread than you have. ;)

Link to comment

If you in any way think that this building isn't a direct attack on America by "the Muslims" (one homogeneous body) then you're an "oik" who hates America and Americans?

 

Makes perfect sense to me. laugh2.gif

 

 

As usual, you make no attempt at dialogue.

Actually, I've posted more of my own words in this thread than you have. wink.gif

 

Fair enough (to the bold).

 

But point isn't about a single position.

 

I agree with the following:

 

Krauthammer portrays this as a cynical game: "Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. . . .

What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument."

 

The article is not referring to a single policy issue - at least that is not how I view it.

 

To restate using Manhattan's format:

 

Person suporting: Arguments "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", etc.

Person opposing: Argument "You're a bigot."

 

That is different from:

Person opposing: Counter-argument "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", etc.

 

----

As Krauthammers says, it "preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument."

If the intent is to shut people up. If the purpose is to simply "win" the debate with ad hominem attacks, rhetorical tricks and simple assertions - that's fine.

 

At least I know.

Link to comment

I wonder if you do know. Your author gets up on his soapbox and decries people for labeling their opponents with names like "racist" and "bigot," using labels to nullify their arguments, but what does he do - he does exactly the same thing.

 

Instead of "racists" and "bigots," he labels his opponents "liberal elitists," "cognitive elite" and "Oikophobes," and that's just a few of the labels he uses. He attempts to obviate their argument by painting them in the most cynical light, as if anyone who stands up for the religious rights of all Americans (not just a select few) are anti-American - wait, that's not exactly what he says. We're not only anti-American, we're practicing "Marxism Light."

 

This is exactly the kind of rhetorical buffoonery that keeps me in a job. I've given my life to foster tolerance and equality - bedrock foundational elements of America - and it saddens me that in 2010, when we should know better, we're devolving as a society.

Link to comment

I wonder if you do know. Your author gets up on his soapbox and decries people for labeling their opponents with names like "racist" and "bigot," using labels to nullify their arguments, but what does he do - he does exactly the same thing.

 

Instead of "racists" and "bigots," he labels his opponents "liberal elitists," "cognitive elite" and "Oikophobes," and that's just a few of the labels he uses. He attempts to obviate their argument by painting them in the most cynical light, as if anyone who stands up for the religious rights of all Americans (not just a select few) are anti-American - wait, that's not exactly what he says. We're not only anti-American, we're practicing "Marxism Light."

 

This is exactly the kind of rhetorical buffoonery that keeps me in a job. I've given my life to foster tolerance and equality - bedrock foundational elements of America - and it saddens me that in 2010, when we should know better, we're devolving as a society.

 

Yes - I am well aware of what it means and I don't like it.

I'd rather discuss policy differences and if I am in error be allowed to make corrections.

 

So fine - withdrawn. What do you concede?

 

What then is the appropriate response to: eight years of Bush=Hitler, bigot, racist, fascist, liar, hateful, no blood for oil, homophobe, "When did you stop beating your dog?", etc. ad nauseum?

Having one's motives relentlessly questioned. Oppose the President on policy issue - racist. Oppose HCR - unpatriotic.

And yes it is cynical shouting down opponents as "bigots" - even if you think you are completely justified.

 

Perhaps I've missed, it but I haven't see you call out anyone on your side of the issues (not as "moderator knapplc" but as "citizen knapplc").

Even you bought into Olby's Niemoller inference except you used a different poem.

 

Have you foresworn the use of the word "bigot" (and like terms) when making your point?

Link to comment

So fine - withdrawn. What do you concede?

 

What then is the appropriate response to: eight years of Bush=Hitler, bigot, racist, fascist, liar, hateful, no blood for oil, homophobe, "When did you stop beating your dog?", etc. ad nauseum?

Having one's motives relentlessly questioned. Oppose the President on policy issue - racist. Oppose HCR - unpatriotic.

And yes it is cynical shouting down opponents as "bigots" - even if you think you are completely justified.

 

Perhaps I've missed, it but I haven't see you call out anyone on your side of the issues (not as "moderator knapplc" but as "citizen knapplc").

Even you bought into Olby's Niemoller inference except you used a different poem.

 

Have you foresworn the use of the word "bigot" (and like terms) when making your point?

 

What "side" are you talking about? If you think I'm a Liberal, you'd better think again. I spent most of the Bush administration shaking my finger at all the ridiculous Bush-bashers out there (note - only the ridiculous ones). Just because there's a Liberal in office, doesn't mean I'm going to stop shaking my finger.

 

I'm a Moderate, my man, registered Independent for over 10 years now. Come join me - the water's fine. You don't overreact to the nonsense out there, you don't have to declare "this guy" or "that guy" as your enemy, and you can in general stay away from the fray out there.

Link to comment

So fine - withdrawn. What do you concede?

 

What then is the appropriate response to: eight years of Bush=Hitler, bigot, racist, fascist, liar, hateful, no blood for oil, homophobe, "When did you stop beating your dog?", etc. ad nauseum?

Having one's motives relentlessly questioned. Oppose the President on policy issue - racist. Oppose HCR - unpatriotic.

And yes it is cynical shouting down opponents as "bigots" - even if you think you are completely justified.

 

Perhaps I've missed, it but I haven't see you call out anyone on your side of the issues (not as "moderator knapplc" but as "citizen knapplc").

Even you bought into Olby's Niemoller inference except you used a different poem.

 

Have you foresworn the use of the word "bigot" (and like terms) when making your point?

 

What "side" are you talking about? If you think I'm a Liberal, you'd better think again. I spent most of the Bush administration shaking my finger at all the ridiculous Bush-bashers out there (note - only the ridiculous ones). Just because there's a Liberal in office, doesn't mean I'm going to stop shaking my finger.

 

I'm a Moderate, my man, registered Independent for over 10 years now. Come join me - the water's fine. You don't overreact to the nonsense out there, you don't have to declare "this guy" or "that guy" as your enemy, and you can in general stay away from the fray out there.

 

I specifically wrote: "...on your side of the issues." I do not presume you are easily defined.

 

And I'm sure you consider yourself to be a 'moderate' most do and you may well be.

But again, I find your willing acceptance of the Niemoller inference to be bothersome.

 

However, I'm just some random guy in a political thread - what the "heck" do I know about you? A: Next to nothing.

 

Anyway, I really should go do something more productive.

Have an excellent day.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...