The devaluation of shock

  • From Wall St. Jour­nal Best of the Web, by James Taranto:

    Abe Fox­man of the Anti-Defamation League is out­raged over a com­ment Rep. Charles Rangel made the other day, the New York Daily News‘s Lloyd Grove reports:

    The Iraq war “is the biggest fraud ever com­mit­ted on the peo­ple of this coun­try.… This is just as bad as the 6 mil­lion Jews being killed,” the 74-year-old Harlem Demo­c­rat insisted dur­ing a Mon­day radio appear­ance on the WWRL-AM morn­ing show with Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter. “The whole world knew and they were quiet about it because it wasn’t their ox being gored.”

    When inter­viewer Malzberg chal­lenged Rangel’s anal­ogy, the con­gress­man replied: “I am say­ing that people’s silence when they know things ter­ri­ble are hap­pen­ing is the same thing as the Holocaust.”…

    Fox­man retorted: “It is so out­ra­geous that I think he owes an apol­ogy not only to the fam­i­lies of the vic­tims of the Shoah, but he also owes an apol­ogy to the sol­diers who are fight­ing for freedom…”

    It’s good that there are peo­ple like Fox­man around who are paid to remind us that such com­par­isons are out­ra­geous. For our part, we can barely muster the energy to roll our eyes. We have sim­ply become desen­si­tized to exor­bi­tant liberal-left rhetoric. Bush = Hitler! Lit­tle Eich­manns! Guan­tanamo is a Gulag! By now what can one offer in response but a weary “whatever”?

    This is a prob­lem not only for those who resist the triv­i­al­iza­tion of evil but also for the lib­eral left itself. Shock can be a use­ful rhetor­i­cal device, but only if used spar­ingly — for the listener’s capac­ity for shock quickly dimin­ishes. That’s why Repub­li­cans see Howard Dean as a laugh­ing­stock rather than a threat.


    He’s right, of course. It’s a trend that’s been going on for so long that it’s not even worth the energy it takes to shrug. And just as deeply ingrained is the egre­gious double-standard by those on Sen­si­tiv­ity Patrol:

    One pecu­liar aspect of all this is that the defend­ers of left-wing shock-artists are them­selves so eas­ily shocked. When [per­for­mance artist] Karen Fin­ley per­formed unnat­ural acts with root veg­eta­bles onstage, we were told this was an exer­cise of her con­sti­tu­tional rights. But the same peo­ple pro­fessed hor­ror when Anita Hill alleged that Clarence Thomas had made rib­ald remarks in the 1980s. When Ward Churchill called 9/11 vic­tims “lit­tle Eich­manns,” he was exer­cis­ing his aca­d­e­mic free­dom, but when John Bolton called Kim Jong Il a tyrant it was out­ra­geously undiplo­matic. Uri­nat­ing on a cru­ci­fix is art (Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ”), but “mis­han­dling” a Koran is a crime against human­ity. And so on.

    A good coun­ter­ar­gu­ment is that Fin­ley, Churchill and Ser­rano, although they are or were gov­ern­ment sup­pli­cants, have never held posi­tions of actual respon­si­bil­ity, and those who do hold such posi­tions are rightly held to a higher stan­dard. After all, the things they say actu­ally matter.

    That’s fair enough — but the embrace of shock rhetoric by promi­nent Demo­c­ra­tic politi­cians sug­gests that many in America’s minor­ity party no longer sees them­selves as respon­si­ble polit­i­cal actors.


    No related posts.


Leave a Reply

* Name, Email, and Comment are Required