The Heyday of Kennedyism
Im not sure if I ever actually met Sam Alito at Princeton. Its hard to recognize a guy when the last time you saw him he was wearing a sheet.
Just kidding! Strike that remark from the record!
I wasnt an alumnus, but I used to live near Princeton and I hung out with several friends in the offices of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a rather ineffectual conservative outfit now exposed by Ted Kennedy as a reprehensible group. Well, Ted himself was born into a reprehensible group, which he has never repudiated, namely, the Kennedy family. The real scandal is that they have never repudiated him, either. In that flock, the black sheep is the bellwether.
Joe Stalin and Mao Zedong used to hold the record for unconscious irony, but by now I think Ted has broken it. A full generation after Chappaquiddick, hes still expressing shock over other peoples pasts. Dwelling in a glass house, he has made a career of throwing bricks, which his colleagues are too polite to toss back at him. Unlike Joe McCarthy, he has always made wild charges with complete impunity. Cant someone at least give him a breathalyzer test?
The heyday of McCarthyism lasted only five years. The heyday of Kennedyism, still active, is nearly two decades old, if you date it from his 1987 smear of Robert Bork. But its really much older, because Kennedyism didnt start with Ted. Freestyle accusations of bigotry against political opponents have been a hallowed liberal tradition since the era of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman.
Judge Alito, it must be said, failed to prove he wasnt a bigot; but then, nobody can prove he isnt a bigot to liberals satisfaction. Thats the whole idea of bigotry charges: they are meant to be unfalsifiable, like Soviet charges of anti-Soviet activities. Once you are accused, youve already been convicted. There are few acquittals.
Since the charges cant be disproved, there is no penalty for making false accusations. The burden of proof is on the accused, not the accuser, and besides, the charges are never really defined, so how could they be refuted anyway? If somebody accuses you of murder, he has to produce a corpse, for openers. But if he accuses you of sexism or homophobia, nobody is even quite sure what he means, except maybe that he doesnt like your political opinions and wants to stigmatize you.
Such charges sexism, homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, and the generic all-purpose hate and bigotry are what the British philosopher Gilbert Ryle called bogus predicates. They sound as if they mean something, but they have no specifiable content. The listener is invited to fill them out with his own emotional associations. Murder implies that someone has killed someone else. What does bigotry imply?
If liberals were honest, theyd define their words precisely enough that we could meaningfully distinguish between true and false charges, and theyd censure those who made false charges. When McCarthy spoke of card-carrying Communists, he made the ultimately fatal mistake of making meaningful charges; and when he couldnt back them up, he was ruined.
Thats the difference between the brief McCarthy era and the too-long Kennedy era. Can you even imagine liberal opinion demanding that Ted Kennedy put up or shut up? The U.S. Senate virtually censured McCarthy. Kennedy can rail on with the full assurance that his colleagues will never do that to him, even with a Republican majority.
Kennedys abysmal personal character inspired one wag to quip that his religion is so private he wont even impose it on himself. He has every reason to invent synthetic ideological sins to divert attention from his own concrete moral deficiencies, which might be gently described as contemptible. No wonder he makes it his pastime to savage other mens reputations, as if making them look bad could make him look good.
Even now Ted is allowed by his party to wear the ill-fitting courtesy halo he supposedly inherited from his murdered brothers. He is still allowed to pose as a spokesman for women, minorities, the poor, civil liberties, and all the other sacred progressive causes.
Theres not much point in dwelling on the irony of all this; it ceased being funny a long time ago. Hes the aging superstar in a sport whose only object is to commit fouls against the other side.
|Copyright © 2006 by the
Griffin Internet Syndicate,
a division of Griffin Communications
This column may not be reprinted in print or
Internet publications without express permission
of Griffin Internet Syndicate
Archive Table of Contents
Return to the SOBRANS home page.
|FGF E-Package columns by Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, Paul Gottfried, and others are available in a special e-mail subscription provided by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation. Click here for more information.|