Moral Monopoly No More – Western Voices World News

Arguments are
won these days based on who holds the cards in relation to America’s
racial past.What explains the deliberate misreading of the new Arizona
immigration law by pundits, politicians, and even private citizens? The
law expressly forbids racial profiling, and yet a vast constituency of
Americans interpret the law as an open assault on race–or, perhaps, on
the racial status quo.
The answer has to do with the massive transfer of moral capital that
occurred in the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to civil
rights activist and scholar Shelby Steele, that landmark legislation
marked a revolution of consciousness in the American white majority in
acknowledging its complicity not only in the formative years of slavery
but in subsequent era of segregation. America’s acknowledgment of this
huge wrong resulted in a “vacuum of moral authority.”
According to Steele, from that moment on “the legitimacy of American
institutions [became contingent on proving a negative: that they
are not racist” (White Guilt, by Shelby Steel, p. 27, emphasis
added). Soon this contingency extended beyond black-white relations in
the United States to include all non-white populations throughout the
world as well as the environment and even the rule of law. It was
impossible for those traditionally associated with power in America–the
white majority–to invoke any sacred text or principle, whether Holy Writ
or the U. S Constitution. Why? Because they lacked the moral authority
to do so.
This explains why Americans are more afraid of being called racist
than they are of defending their own borders. It’s almost like they are
in fear for their mortal souls. It explains why American airport
security has turned into a ritual exercise of proving “we are not
racists” by showcasing obvious non-threats rather than going out of our
way to keep would-be terrorists from entering the United States.
It also explains why many are desperately intent upon keeping the
memory of America’s racial past on center stage, until almost everything
is about race. For today’s political opportunist, every issue derives
either directly or indirectly from America’s original sin of racism.
Those who identify on one side of an issue have the power to stigmatize
those on the other simply by calling them a name. That kind of spiritual
potency translates into moral capital which, in turn, justifies
political power.
Moral authority is what gives weight to one set of public opinions
and not another. It explains why politicians can get away with dubious
logic and even outright falsehood as long as they are “on the right
side” of a sensitive (usually racially charged) issue. It explains the
mysterious power of political correctness, which everyone laughs about
but few have the courage to confront.
Moral authority is what legitimizes the exercise of power in society.
Some have it and some don’t. Those who have it have rights. Those who
don’t can be pushed around. This is why people can simply walk across
American borders and join a protest movement once they get here. It
explains why anyone who objects is “racist.” Rational discourse about
“issues” is usually a matter of political window dressing. Arguments are
won these days based on who holds the cards in relation to America’s
racial past.
Hence the intuitive reaction to the Arizona legislation. In a very
concrete way, the new legislation reshuffles the American political
deck. It does so by reinstating the rule of law as a matter of principle
and in defiance of the demand that public discourse be properly vetted
by some certified authority brokered in during the era of political
correctness.
Arizona has threatened the status quo by refusing to acknowledge the
old currency of political correctness. That means the handwriting is on
the wall. Now it is only a matter of time before that currency loses all
value.
If Arizona gets away with asserting the rule of law–the same law that
is on the books at the Federal level and in most states–then the basis
for exercising power will have changed hands in the United States. A
transformation of consciousness will have taken place. This is why the
President and his minions are waging a special campaign against the
Arizona legislature without reading the text of the legislation and
without consulting with the Governor.
A people that is willing to stand up for itself, even at considerable
cost, acquires moral weight in defining the meaning of right and wrong. (1)
As Dr. Steele points out, that was the moral achievement of the civil
rights movement in the 50s and early 60s.(2)<a href=”http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/26/moral-monopoly-no-more/”>More</a> (1) Fine. European Americans must define right and wrong by repealing the Civil Rights Act AND the Immigration Act of 1965 once and for all.(2) A ‘moral achievement’ that to this day has proven itself not only immoral but dangerous.

2010-05-27