It’s a horrifying story that should petrify any international traveler: A perfectly harmless person headed to speak at a conference is detained for hours because he has the wrong kind of visa.
Officials were curious about a foreign government’s paying for the speech, and you can just imagine how you’d feel: It’s Kafka without the charming yet somehow ominous architecture! You traveled across the ocean to give a nice talk to some smart people, and now you’re treated like you left the plane wearing a bin Laden mask and with bricks of modeling clay strapped to your chest, ululating fealty to the jihad.
Here’s the odd thing: This happened in March of last year. Well, you say, the growing wave of Trump enthusiasm empowered border bullies to give vent to their darker instincts.
But it happened in London. Rachel Nabors, an American, was going to Oxford to give a speech, and there were visa complications. She wrote an account of the petty, anal-retentive, unpleasant British officials who turned her away and put her on a plane back home. I thought of her when I read the New York Times account of Henry Rousso, a French historian detained at a Texas airport because of . . . visa complications. You knew the Times would put the event in context, in case you didn’t realize what dark times have descended:
Since Mr. Trump took office in January, immigration authorities have engaged in several high-profile actions against immigrants. Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said on Tuesday that the president wanted to “take the shackles off” of agents who had, under President Barack Obama, been under orders to focus only on serious criminals.
Well, there you go! Shackles removed from the agents and clapped on the shanks of a harmless intellectual who happened to be a Holocaust scholar. We’re supposed to infer the relevance, right? As if the brown-shirted agents figured he was one of them Jew-symps riling up fake news about Hitler’s camps, which were really a jobs program, when you think about it.
The only reason the story went national was that it fed the narrative: Swaggering louts with mirrored sunglasses and billy clubs stand ready to expel decent, smart, harmless people who come from France. What other conclusion could you draw from an administration that wanted to throttle immigration from Yemen? It’s like the bomb threats on Jewish community centers and the headstone toppling in Jewish graveyards: Apparently there’s nothing that emboldens anti-Semites more than a president with a Jewish daughter who wants to limit immigration from countries that want to destroy Israel.
Perhaps one of the reasons the media are in a 24-hour sweaty trembling panic is that they finally have a literal version of their previous conservative caricature. In the old days:
Republican administration: We are drafting a series of regulations that will extend the timetable for the phase-out of coal from 2036 to 2041.
Environmentalists: OMG you are literally dumping coal-fired-power-plant waste into pristine streams!
Republicans: What? No! We are tightening standards on emissions as they pertain to the 1996 International Tributary and Estuary Purity Concords –
Environmentalists: Why don’t you just go in the rivers and strangle dolphins, because that is literally what you people want to do.
Republicans: Okay, after additional consideration, we are tightening the timetables to phase out coal by next Christmas.
Environmentalists: Not everyone celebrates Christmas, you theocrats.
And so on. Now:
Trump administration: We are scrapping Obama-mandated regulations that forbade the dumping of coal-mining runoff right into the local streams.
Environmentalists: Why don’t you just allow coal-mining runoff to go right into the local streams, because that’s what you want to — hold on, what did you say?
Trump administration: Have a nice day.
Sure, there’s some satisfaction in seeing the hyperventilating Left confront the actual embodiment of its hyperbolic accusations. “You guys just want to destroy the Department of Education because you hate poor kids’ learning!” No to the second part, but yeah, sure to the first. Since they can’t get any angrier about the anti-human perfidy of the Right, what’s the downside?
Here’s the problem. When I read news-alert headlines about the administration’s permitting the dumping of stuff into water, I thought: That might be bad. Just because the perpetually aggrieved are stroking out doesn’t mean it’s good. If a news story said, “In a surprising reversal, the Trump administration announced it would reclassify plutonium as a vegetable,” I wouldn’t think, “Ha, they got upset when Reagan did that with ketchup. Typical overreaction.”
But if the media set their hair on fire every time the administration does something, anything, you get fatigue fatigue: You’re tired just thinking about how you’ll feel tired of another mischaracterization. You think they’re the boy crying wolf — except you also remember that the story contained an actual wolf, eventually.
Reader: Hey there, media, you might want to watch out for wolves and make their appearance reason for concern.
Media: All dogs are genetically wolves.
Reader: Yeah, technically, but can you ramp it back so I know you can tell the difference between a Bichon Frise and a feral canine that would eat a baby?
Media: Next Sunday, every word in the New York Times will be “wolf,” because we are resisting wolves.
Reader: Even the wedding announcements?
Media: No, unless “Wolf” is the surname of the bride.
Facts matter; we can agree on that. Reporting on the detention of an academic is reporting a fact. It’s not fake news. But it’s a fake controversy.
Real news. Fake panic. Two guesses which one’s more popular.
– Mr. Lileks blogs at www.lileks.com.