In which our regular writers toss around subjects a
little more volatile than usual.
Canadian Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau is apologizing again, this time for being caught
dressing as a blackface Aladdin at a 2001 party, thereby managing to potentially offend
two different segments of his voting base simultaneously. Or so say his
detractors.
Tom: IC, would our Canadian readers be expected to give him a pass if he’d cross-dressed as Jasmine rather than Aladdin?
Immanuel Can: Plausibly. Dressing so as to “appropriate” a culture or to mock another “race” (to use
their words) is greeted with howls of dismay; but there’s an automatic approval
of men who dress as women, so that might work for him.
Not Fit to Govern
Tom: Well, that’s exactly what I’d like to discuss with you today: the all-but-universal public acceptance of the social justice narrative. Trudeau’s critics sound like parrots.
Now, bear in mind that I am no supporter of Justin
Trudeau, but I was watching the leaders of the various Canadian opposition
parties holding forth on the Prime Minister’s faux pas, and their scripted expressions of outrage came across to
me as absolutely nauseating and thoroughly fake. Of all the things that
Canadians have put up with over the last four years or so, to suggest that a
twenty-year old game of politically incorrect dress-up is the big scandal that
makes our current Prime Minister “not fit to govern” is ludicrous. If Mr. Trudeau is unfit, it is for many more
significant reasons, and these are what people should be discussing.
But from what I’m seeing, the outrage is mostly manufactured and is restricted mostly to politicians and members of the media. I have not talked about this to a
single real human being who was deeply offended by the
Prime Minister’s gaffe. The vast majority of people I work with would still vote for him, and those who wouldn’t were never going to anyway.
IC: That’s the interesting thing, isn’t it? We live in a culture that talks more about
tolerance than at any time in history, and is continually practicing less
of it.
Preachers of Tolerance
Tom: Where were all these photos of Mr. Trudeau in blackface when he was running for his job in 2015? Surely this is not the first time members of the Canadian media have seen them ... unless they only do their due diligence on politicians whose positions they dislike. And if these pictures did not disqualify Mr. Trudeau four years ago when the Left was dying to have anyone but Stephen Harper as Prime Minister, why are they so awful now?
Anyway, here’s what I’m wondering: how would you like to have the standard that is being applied to
Justin Trudeau applied to you? You do something — nothing illegal, of
course — two decades ago, and today people are pulling up pictures from the internet and
telling you that you’re not fit to do your job and never were. And yet something equally dodgy could be picked at random out of
almost any of our pasts.
IC: It seems a case of “live by the sword, die by the sword.” When you position yourself as
the captain of political correctness and virtue-signaling, then you set yourself
up for this kind of treatment. That doesn’t make it right, but it does make it
predictable.
No, none of us can stand up to standard like that. We all
have to be allowed to make mistakes and recover from them. But nowadays, that’s
just not a luxury that’s being afforded.
The Measure of a Man
Tom: What interests me about all this, IC, is that everyone from the Green Party on the
far Left to the so-called Conservatives somewhere in the mushy middle has now
effectively agreed to evaluate a person’s character, social contributions and
life’s work on the basis of whether they have always conducted themselves by
the entirely arbitrary standards of the current moment. That’s appalling.
It has gotten so bad that even Christians are now throwing
out the works of Jonathan Edwards because he owned slaves. The man lived in the
early 1700s. Everybody owned slaves then. You cannot define an entire person by
his lowest act, otherwise you would not read the epistles of Peter, who denied
Christ and waffled on legalism, and you certainly would toss the Psalms,
because — ugh! — Bathsheba.
IC: I wonder if we haven’t lost touch with our own early mistakes. We make many, as we go
through the processes of life; and the great thing about being a Christian is
that none is unforgivable.
Tom: Right. Furthermore, what people did, said and believed twenty years ago is rarely what they would
do today. We all learn as we go. And what they did three hundred-plus years
ago, when their entire society accepted the same norms as they did, is even
less relevant to the long-term value of what they wrote or did.
IC: Paul’s life was like that … he started out being violent, blasphemous, complicit in
murder, and the leading persecutor of the early church. But how ought we to
weigh up his life now?
Tom: Exactly. We need to look at where a person is today in their thinking and behavior, not
where they were in high school.
Turning Apologies into Lectures
Now, that said, Mr. Trudeau continues to promote the
same diversity and tolerance propaganda he’s always pushed. In fact, he’s even
turned his apologies into opportunities to lecture others. So I can’t
bring myself to get too worked up about defending him, given that he appears to
have learned nothing from the experience of being judged by his own standards.
IC: No, I think he’s learned very little. And I suspect the Left will let him off,
actually. But can you imagine if a Right-leaning politician — or even a
Christian one — were to make even one such mistake? That would, for
certain, be the end of his or her career.
Tom: Well, consider how the Conservatives handled
Patrick Brown, the former Ontario Progressive Conservative leader, at the height of the #MeToo
movement. The moment allegations of questionable past sexual conduct were made
about him, he became toxic and his own caucus threw him under the bus without
substantiating the first word of what had been alleged. His campaign team and
office staff all walked out; they were only too quick to turn on their own guy.
Now, it may be that Brown was guilty and the accusations were substantially
accurate, but the point is, Brown’s staff didn’t know that at the time they
turned on him. They just lined up to virtue signal.
The Left never does that to their own. In the nineties, they backed Bill
Clinton despite all kinds of credible evidence against him. And nothing has changed. That double standard, then and now, makes me suspect the furor is not really about what is genuinely offensive at all; it’s about who is allowed to define that for us. It’s about exercising power over others.
Not a Good Look
IC: Okay, Tom, what’s the Christian position on all this?
Tom: Well, I certainly don’t think you’ll ever get a consensus among believers. Most
Christians would probably say character matters in a politician, but few expect
to find much of it, and those who think they have finally done so are usually disappointed.
But my takeaway is this: foaming with outrage is not a good
look for a believer, whether the flapping is phony or real, “for with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” I can well
understand Leftists piling on — it’s what they do. I can even understand
Conservatives doing their customary huffing and puffing — they’re trying
to stay politically relevant by mimicking the Liberals policy-for-policy and
reaction-for-reaction. The Canadian electorate is so far to the Left they
feel they have no other choice.
But Christians are well advised to steer clear of holding
other people’s pasts against them or passing public, verbal judgment on actions
against which there is no law now, and against which there was no law back in
2001. What goes around comes around, as they say. Would you want your
employment status to hinge on statements you made or things you did in a moment
of poor judgment two decades ago? I sure wouldn’t.
Where We Came From
IC: I think there’s also a great heaping of self-righteousness obvious in the zeal with
which the Left goes after its enemies. It’s not merely that they hate what
their enemies represent, but that they are keen to misrepresent
their enemies by way of exaggeration, and then there’s a kind of glee in
pouring out vilification on them. It’s not just a “You’re so bad” thing; it’s
an “Aren’t I virtuous ’cuz I hate your guts so much” kind of thing.
That’s not a disposition a Christian should ever have. We
are the forgiven, not the perfect. A lack of humility and a delight in judgment suggests we’ve
forgotten where we came from and what our own deep nature is
still capable of being. That
attitude is not just ugly, but completely self-deluded as well.
Tom: You mention the Left, and I agree, but more and more I’m noticing a tendency among
dyed-in-the-wool conservatives to pile on the target of a perceived grievance
as well. It’s almost like the mentality is “Maybe they’ll eat me last if
I agree with them enthusiastically enough.” In this case, Christian
conservatives at least need to be reminded that God did not give us a spirit of fear.
IC: The Left has created the monster, and the mass media have raised it to full size. But now,
the Right is beginning to mimic the voice and tactics of their opposition.
Facts, balance and honesty are devalued, and emotions, exaggeration, and
outrage are carrying public opinion, they feel; so the Right is now getting
into the game too.
A Sane and Consistent Standard
Tom: Hey, maybe I’m being unfair to conservatives and they simply don’t want to be perceived as
condoning sin. Fair enough. But in that case, it would be wise to consider that
disclaiming people is not some kind of Christian virtue. Due process is
important, as well as maintaining a sane and consistent standard about what
sort of things are or ought to be genuinely offensive to people across the
board, not just to an easily-scandalized and manipulative minority. Often the
media is in a flap about some supposed outrageously offensive act or statement,
and when I find out what actually happened, my reaction is a big
“So what?”
Let the facts come out first, bearing in mind that our standards of right and wrong are not the same as the
world’s, and especially not the same as those of the political Left.
IC: Not only that, but let the reaction be proportional to the truth. Nobody made us
judges of the world. We are to
judge ourselves and, by the grace of God, to
judge our fellow Christians’ actions. But we are not called to manipulate the public sphere toward our perception of
“godliness”. That’s a delusion. God judges outsiders; we don’t.
No comments :
Post a Comment