Last week, Hans Fiene – writing in the Federalist–coined the term “Selma envy” to describe the fervor of gay-marriage supporters. In their search for the heroic narrative, Fiene’s generation has appropriated the courage of the Civil Rights movement. In two stinging paragraphs, he illustrates the absurdity:
Likewise, we will continue linking the civil-rights movement with the push for gay acceptance without pausing for a second to consider the comparison. We will continue diminishing the bravery of Rosa Parks by claiming a seat beside her as our reward for the one time we boycotted Chick-Fil-A for a month. We will trivialize the death of Medgar Evers by praising his blood for freeing gay couples to financially ruin a florist who hurt their feelings instead of walking one more block to find another purveyor of petunias who was happy to take their money.
In the Kingdom of Heaven, countless children of God will embrace the older saints who gave them lives of far greater dignity on earth by following Christ’s example and enduring insults, beatings, imprisonments, and even death for them. We know this and yet we will insist that we’re owed an equal measure of honor because we tweeted our support for every gay kiss on “Glee.”
Well, Selma envy has nothing on Gettysburg envy. The 150th anniversary of the end of the Civil War was bound to generate some unhinged articles, but for “elite” commentary in a “prestige” journal, it’s tough to beat the complete nonsense in this David Blight article in The Atlantic. Most of the article is inoffensive enough, providing a sad and interesting survey of Reconstruction-era history focusing on the post-war wave of violence against freed slaves. But since Reconstruction ended long ago and Jim Crow has been dead for generations, Blight needed some other fresh outrage to keep the Civil War alive.
And here it is:
Yes, the Civil War was rooted in states’ rights, but like any other constitutional doctrine, it significance rests with the issue in whose service it is employed. States’ rights for or to do what? For whom or against whom? In 1860 and 1861, some Southerners exercised “state sovereignty” as an act of revolution in the interest, as they said over and over themselves, of preserving a racial order founded on slavery. Today, states’ rights claims are advanced by many governors, legislatures, and presidential candidates in the ubiquitous language of “limited government,” or resistance to “big government.” Every now and then, though, these claims are couched in the rhetoric of “secession” or even “nullification” made so infamous during the Civil War era. More often, such claims have manifested in a new Orwellian language etched into laws to protect the “right to work,” or “religious freedom,” or the “integrity of the ballot.”
And of course, there’s the mandatory defamation of the Tea Party:
Although these contemporary echoes from previous centuries ought not be treated as straight equivalence between past and present, far-right federalists, who dominate the movement called the Tea Party, and who have found a vigorous leadership position at the heart of the Republican Party and on the federal judiciary, have much in common with the secessionists of 1861. Both groups are distinct minorities who have suddenly seized an inordinate degree of power due to congressional districting practices and effective use of conspiracy theories about centralization and the “leviathan” state. One acted in revolution to create and save a slaveholders’ republic; the other seems determined to render the modern federal government all but obsolete for any purpose beyond national defense and the protection of private citizens from having to participate in a social contract with their fellow citizens in tax-supported programs such as Social Security, Medicare, public education, environmental protection, or disaster relief. Both groups claim their mantle of righteousness in the name of “liberty,” privatization, hyper-individualism and racial supremacy (one openly, the other covertly).
He goes on, but I won’t bore you with the entire rant. It’s hard to know where to start. Recent events probably made it necessary for him to include “religious freedom” (scare quotes and all) in his litany of “states’ rights”–never mind that state RFRAs are actually modeled after a federal law that attempted (until the Supreme Court intervened) to protect religious freedom from federal and state encroachment. His other issues, from “right to work” and “ballot integrity” represent merely two parts of the laundry list of liberal grievances against conservative governments. In both cases, the state actions are authorized by the Constitution and federal law, just like contrary — more liberal — state laws. So, is the reasoning that state law from the Left upholds the spirit of the Army of the Potomac, while state law from the right comes straight from the barrels of the Army of Northern Virginia?
Weak.
But the invocation of “racial supremacy” and the Tea Party — well, that gets personal. I’ve represented dozens of tea-party groups. Good friends of mine are among the first founders of the tea-party movement. I’ve defended the Tea Party from IRS attacks for years. I dare say that I’ve forgotten more about the Tea Party than Mr. Blight will ever know. And I’ve never –not one time — heard the slightest hint of white supremacy, covert or otherwise. The idea that the tea-party movement is animated or motivated by racism is pure fiction.
The reality of the new world might surprise Mr. Blight. We live in the heart of the South, in Middle Tennessee, roughly 40 miles from the Alabama border. This part of Tennessee was thoroughly Confederate. A famous Confederate unit called the “Bigby Greys” was recruited from our part of the county, and legendary Confederate soldier Samuel Watkins not only attended our church, his house is only about 100 yards from mine. He’s buried in our church cemetery, along with dozens of other Confederate soldiers. My own family history is full of Confederate officers, men who fought for the South at Shiloh, Vicksburg, Franklin, and Nashville. Given that reality, and given my Tea Party ties, Mr. Blight likely thinks I seethe with race hatred, that I’m surrounded by white supremacists, and that I keep my supremacy “covert” only because overt expressions would alienate too many Americans.
Yet, as many readers know, my family is mixed-race. My beautiful youngest daughter is black. A mixed-race family lives in Sam Watkins’ old home. Our church’s Sunday School looks like an Ivy League diversity poster — mainly because our church strongly encourages adoption. And while I’m keenly aware that racism exists, I’m also keenly aware that the vast majority of the negative racial incidents we’ve faced have come from the Left, from people who can’t abide the notion of white parents (especially conservative Christian parents) raising a black child.
Mr. Blight is a Yale professor and an able historian whose non-political works are fascinating. Yet like all too many members of our cultural elite, he uses the immense power of his prestigious platform not just to share his expertise, but to vent his ignorant political spleen. It’s beneath him, beneath Yale, and beneath The Atlantic.