The New McCarthyism

The times that I have gone to see "controversial" speakers at UT, there have been the typical klatsches of young folks bent on subverrting the dominant paradigm, usually at the urging of a tenured prof of "communications." Typically, they carry hastily lettered poster boards scrawled with recycled slogans that are obscure to those of us whose understanding of reality is less tenuous.  One popular slogan, carried by the same young woman at both the David Horowitz talk and the Ann Coulter speech, is "Stop the New McCarthyism!"  a sentiment which I heartily share, except that I'm given to understand that she and I disagree as to who is perpetuating the New McCarthyism.  Well, it's now on the public record.

And the Americans who think we have a culture worth defending, a history worth relating in truth and glory, with warts and all, will mark the anniversary of our loss and our victory on 9/11.  And those for whom "American" is a word that causes a whiff of shame, embarrassment, cringing and outright disgust, there is the orgy of the Khatami visit (huzzah: he thinks Jews are human beings and is sticking to his story no matter what his hosts at Harvard tell him) and the furor over "The Path to 9/11."  The following is a fictionalized (but true!) account of the rants that can be seen on say, the Daily Kos:

We the Angry Left left the Plame bone somewhere because the Washington Post said, at long last, what any sensible person and Patrick Fitzgerald has known for years:  that there was nothing to it.  There will not be a "Whoopsie! missed that one- so sorry we trashed Scooter Libby's life" from the Daily Kos. Never mind: a new outrage has come to distract us all from the tedious prospect of understanding ourselves for the emotional, sloppy dopes that we are.  Let's not talk about the First Amendment, please.  Let's eschew any semblance of forbearance or even rudimentary understanding of the word "fictionalized."  Forget live and let live and what's good for the goose and do unto others.  The first and only rule about Liberals that anyone needs to know and understand is that rules are for others.  Logic has rules and therefore plays no part in our world view.

And so we take up the cause of truth, of 9/11, of history. OK, most of us are pretty convinced that even if the collapse of the Twin Towers wasn't a controlled demolition, it is all Bush's fault.  We know our history.  "Fahrenheit 9/11" captures the essential details.  The Muslim Freedom Fighters were really really mad at President Bush, and the United States, and while it's sad in a way that some particular people died, America needed this wake up call to understand true evil.  That  would be George Bush, and if you have any qualms about attributing true evil to a retarded person, there's always Karl Rove.

To review the bidding: no one on the Angry Left, or anywhere else, has seen "The Path to 9/11" in its entirety.  I understand that it is a fictionalized account, complete with narrative devices like conflation and composite characters.  Predictably, Bill Clinton,  the man least able to affect any semblance of propriety yet most sensitive about how he is portrayed, his legacy and all, has seen fit to lower himself by objecting personally to his portrayal in the movie.  The Congressional Dems have threatened to take away ABC's license.  OK,  I say threatened, but other news organizations say "appeal" and "urge."  This is the "pretty please" paragraph:

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Yeah, right.   Let us counter with:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That would be the famous "Freedom of Speech" thingy that the little Socialists are always yammering on about when it doesn't apply.  Congress can't interfere with freedom of speech, especially political speech.  I do wonder who thought it was a good idea to include, "the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events."  Not historical ideas and events?  So they admit their intention is to interfere with political speech.  Where is the ACLU?

All of this is shredding what is left of the thin veil of "We are all Americans here."  This is censorship, plain and simple.  And it's all in the service of one man's vanity, and maybe his wife's political ambitions.  When the Democrats gain control of the House, this is what we have to look forward to.  Welcome to Stalingrad.

But let me mention in passing those bloggers and commentators on the right who think that we Conservatives should be "concerned" about inaccuracies, too.  This would include William Bennett and  Dean Barnett at Soxblog.  To them I say, the day I need to have my historical perspective adjusted by the Daily Kos and Bill Clinton is the day I pack it in and move to someplace progressive, like Iran.  Dean, I know what fictionalized means.

Comments

[Tom the Redhunter]

Cool new blog design. Or did I say that last time I visited? Well either way you're much more creative than me. My site's been the same for 2 years and wouldn't expect any changes for another few.

Re your post. Funny how those who yammer endlessly about freedom of speach are the first to threaten government sanctions against those who practice it. You summed up what the Kos kids think pretty well also.

It's one thing when individuals organize to boycott something. It's another when government officials organize to do so. Can you imagine the reaction if GOP senators did the same thing to a network? The airwaves would be full of talking heads hyperventilating about how the first amendment was supposedly under attack.

And you won't find the ACLU around to help because they're busy searching government offices and courtrooms for copies of the Ten Commandments.