,
17 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Bret Stephens would have been a college student in the early 90s. His "totalitarian left" classmates would have been protesting South African apartheid, homophobia, & lack of public funding to fight AIDS. And Bret is somehow saying THOSE PEOPLE were on the wrong side of history?
The only moderately redeeming point in that Stephens piece has to do with the deeply historical nature of one's conception of "the right." It's true that in 20 years most of us will look back and wonder "why did I so firmly believe X or Y back then?"
But the conclusion he draws from that is so incredibly dumb. Yes, many white people in the early 90s thought Clinton's Sister Souljah moment was great. Now, looking back, most white people have now reconsidered that moment and are appalled that Clinton did that. Not Bret.
I suspect Bret would have been the guy at the Abolitionist meetings in the 1850s saying "but you are all so strident and think you know what's best for everyone. Your totalitarianism is almost as bad as that of the Slave Power."
How does Bret think change happens? Does he think people emerge on the scene, say something that challenges the status quo, and then everyone (including op-ed writers at the NYTimes) says, "Darnit, you're so right. Let's just make that change now!"
Just about every single thing that is valued in 21st century America (including by Bret) was once described as a totalitarian threat to civilization by the powers that be. Feminism, Gay Liberation, Abolition, black civil rights, environmentalism, etc.
In the 1850s most white people (including Lincoln) thought Abolitionists were dangerous extremists who risked hurting the cause of anti-slavery. They were seen as the "left totalitarians" of their day.
So if one is "anti-left totalitarian" today but pro-Abolitionist re. the 1850s like Bret presumably is...that should give someone at least a little bit of pause, you'd think.
Frederick Douglass's 4th of July speech (1854) is brilliant on this. He says to his audience, "you all love the Patriots of '76, right? Well what they did was risky, they were called radicals, unreasonable...."
"...so if you take pride in what the American Revolutionaries accomplished and built, then you should stand in a similarly critical relationship to your current status quo."
College students saying things that sound extreme to 50 year olds is basically the only constant in American History. It happened at Yale in the 1790s for crying out loud. Somehow all of this tumult has not destroyed either the republic or civilization.
And in most cases, we look back at what those "kooky college students were saying" and think, "um, yeah, we now realize they were mostly right and the 50 year olds were overreacting."
Frederick Douglass's 4th of July speech (1854) is brilliant on this. He says to his audience, "you all love the Patriots of '76, right? Well what they did was risky, they were called radicals, unreasonable...."
"...so if you take pride in what the American Revolutionaries accomplished and built, then you should stand in a similarly critical relationship to your current status quo."
In case you're interested, here's an earlier thread offering a reading of Douglass's 4th of July speech. But don't take my word for it, read it for yourself. It should be required reading in the US, IMHO.
Finally, if anyone wants to invoke that "Sister Souljah" moment, they should watch this 1992 press conference she held first. She is soooooo different from how Clinton depicted her, and how most of white America (including Stephens) has remembered her.
The line that most stands out to me is this, "Why is Bill Clinton, the Democratic nominee for President, attacking me, and not the issues that I have spoken out about?"
