Juan Williams' Unpardonable Sin: It's Not What You Think

On Friday, during his weekly stint on "Inside Washington", noted columnist Charles Krauthammer asked, while discussing the firing by National Public Radio of news analyst Juan Williams, "But where did Juan go over the line?"

Joining Mr. Krauthammer was Nina Totenberg, an NPR correspondent who has publicly expressed very strong opinions outside her role as a news correspondent. Mr. Krauthammer observed that Ms. Totenberg has not been fired for essentially committing the same sort of allegedly egregious sins that cost Mr. Williams his job. Mr. Krauthammer was seemingly so perplexed by the incongruous behavior of NPR administrators that he asked his question again: "Where did Juan go over the line?" 

It seems to me Mr. Krauthammer's question was not answered during his appearance on "Inside Washington." So I offer an answer here: NPR fired Juan Williams because he committed the unpardonable sin of forgetting the creed of identity politics.

Juan Williams would not have been fired if he had chosen his words only slightly more carefully; he would still be working at NPR if he had said the following on Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor" with Bill O'Reilly: 

"Look, Bill, let me be honest. Sometimes when I get on a plane and I see some passengers in traditional Muslim garb, I can't help but be a little nervous. I am not proud of this; I admit it is a visceral and even irrational reaction I've had since 9/11. I mean the horror of that day is still with me powerfully; and when I notice folks wearing traditional Muslim garb on a plane, I immediately return to the fears of that day."

Readers may snicker at my revision of what Mr. Williams said, noting that what I've written is virtually identical with what he really did say. And readers may snicker at me for believing such words would have kept Mr. Williams safely in the employ of NPR. Is it because my revision makes his tone sound more conciliatory, even self-deprecating? Is it because he admits his anxiety is irrational? 

The answer to these questions is no. It is all more subtle than that, and very much more political. And it all has to do with seven words I omitted. 

What Mr. Williams did is suggest that self-identification as a member of a certain group, race, sex or other category consistent with identity politics is problematic. Here are his exact words, and please observe what I've highlighted:

"I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous. Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts."

Note what Mr. Williams has implied, that there is some other option to self-identification than that done "first and foremost." He seems to think there is an alternative to identifying oneself as X, a softer, subtler, less offensive alternative. One can be a Muslim, or anything else really. But to identify as a Muslim "first and foremost" leaves Mr. Williams, and others like him, feeling anxious, and maybe even a little impatient.

Perhaps you've heard this sort of thing before. Maybe you've heard something like this: "I am not against gays. I just don't understand why they have to identify themselves first and foremost as gay. I mean, I don't go around identifying myself first and foremost as straight."

Or maybe you've heard this variation:

"I am not a bigot, but I just don't get why so many black players in the NBA have to identify themselves first and foremost as bling-wearing, gang-banging, hip-hop blacks." 

To the truly politically correct who hold identity politics as sacrosanct, Juan Williams' words are an assault on those sacred cows the political left adores. Choosing one's identity for oneself is an existential necessity, or so it goes, and to flaunt that choice is well within the circle of rights contingent on that necessity. If you especially identify with a minority group prone to seemingly right-wing neglect or criticism -- groups like gays, illegal immigrants or apparently harassed and persecuted Muslims -- then by all means identify yourself FIRST AND FOREMOST as a member of that honored group. 

Moreover, Mr. Williams' comment raises the whole issue of multiculturalism, primarily the issue of assimilation. Mr. Williams does not (apparently) "first and foremost" identify himself as a black man; he does not constantly remind his listeners or viewers that he's a member of a black minority. He has, or so it appears, assimilated himself, finding equal footing with the apparently dominant white culture embodied by the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Fox News. He does not wear race on his sleeve; he keeps no obvious racial chip on his shoulder. But for him to suggest that others need not present their minority status first and foremost in everything they do is simply anathema to the left-wing of American politics. In this Mr. Williams stands in stark contrast to men like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. (Williams, if memory serves me well, was quite offended by the likes of Rev. Jeremiah Wright; I believe Williams has even spoken in embarrassed and apologetic terms regarding figures that stand in the Wright/Sharpton tradition.)

Oddly, I am not of the opinion that Mr. Williams' firing has much to do with his position at Fox News; his status as a Fox contributor is not what got him in trouble at NPR. While various Muslim groups no doubt brought pressure on NPR to at least rebuke Mr. Williams, my sense is that the NPR ideologues took note of Williams' far-too-casual stance on identity politics, and they grew impatient with his failure to conform to the expectations of those politics. If, as NPR says, Mr. Williams had something of a record of offenses, I believe it was not his opinions per se that offended NPR. Rather it was Mr. Williams' expressions of impatience with minorities who fall prey to stereotypes, stereotypes that limit the liberation of those groups. Specifically Mr. Williams had strayed too close to being, as some have noted, a "Bill Cosby liberal," a black man who encourages other blacks to stop playing victim politics. Obviously, being a victim is a category of identity politics, and Mr. Williams' criticism of such, subtle as it was, was more than NPR could countenance. 

Lastly, let us not forget that Barack Obama wrote about his personal decision to self-identify as a black man, and this despite his largely and relatively privileged white upbringing and background. In many ways, Mr. Obama has chosen to present himself as "first and foremost" a black man, though his efforts to do so in public often seem rather forced (though I admit that here I may be judging him from my own prejudices about how an authentically black man would present himself). And let us not forget that some black liberals have dismissed the president as not being an "authentically" black man; and more than a few folks have noted that the president's handling of racial issues has often been more awkward than deft. But the sanctity of the president's personal choice of self-identifying as a black man is not to be questioned (and in the case of bi-racial children, I don't question it, as I can't imagine the difficulty).

In the end, Juan Williams, as a public figure and even a role model, committed the unpardonable sin of suggesting that identity politics is not a healthy game, that civilized people need not identify "first and foremost" as anything other than human.

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

CONTRATIMES is REALLY BACK!

Greetings to my few and faithful readers. I have been absent for a number of reasons, not least of which is that I've been once again re-examining my role here and my 'place' in the blogosphere.

Some of you will remember that I wrote earlier this year that this site would no longer focus on politics. I am now retracting that statement. Allow me to explain why.

I've been doing a lot of reading and thinking over the past year and I've reached a conclusion. When this blog began it was specifically focused on religion, but not religion in and of itself, but religion as it is portrayed in Western culture and how a Christian specifically responds to that portrayal. My very first essay at Contratimes, "Krugman, that gnostic", was a criticism of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and his understanding not just of Christian cosmology but Christian thought as a whole. But what Mr. Krugman essentially exemplified was the philosophy not of leftism per se but religious leftism. Thus Contratimes began as a critique of the religious left. 

As a result of the time I've spent immersing myself in sundry books and articles, and reflecting on that reading, I return to a conviction I simply forgot I held: My friends on the left are far more likely to make a religion of politics and the state than my friends on the right. This conviction is reinforced in my life at every turn. I witness it on a daily basis: at the local recycling center this weekend, I heard two people I know rather well, two devout Democrats, speaking of their activism as an all-consuming religious duty. Their speech was about creating a leftist theocracy; the establishment of a utopian state the perfect fruition of their unflagging zeal. 

I have repeatedly turned to the idea of idols and idolatry at this site. I return to it now. My vision is perfectly clear and sharp: People of any political strain may fall into idolatry -- and often do. I understand a strange religious devotion to the state held by some of my conservative peers. But this idolatry is far less evident and pervasive in my life's experience. Granted, this is arguably due to where I live, steeped as New England is in a deep individualism with Unitarian-Universalist dreams that everything works together to the glory of humanity. Forgive the flippancy; I admit it readily. But there is indeed an effective influence the UU church has over New England religious and political thought, a controlling one. What is that influence in essence? Perhaps it is that there is nothing that is ultimately true other than what one chooses to be true. In other words, the idol to which we are to fall prostrate is Will.

Therefore, I am writing about politics because it is clear that politics is indeed a religion. 

Peace.

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

Thus Far, Rejoicing

As of this writing, the news in Chile continues to warm the soul, gladden the heart, and lift the spirit. 

A holy vessel, life within; from light to dark -- and back again. 

Are You Afraid (Of Idols)?

I wonder how it is that those who are not afraid to burn a Koran are considered Islamophobic by those who are afraid of what Muslims will do if a Koran is burned. How is it that the latter -- who do live in abject fear -- are considered tolerant, inclusive, and courageous, while the former, who are not enslaved to fear, are described as exclusive, and exclusively phobic? 

What a sad world we live in; what a sad country in which we dwell, when the President of the United States, succumbing to religious anxiety, asks a man not to burn a book for fear that such an act will harm "our troops." Since when have the American people, particularly just one of them, been called on to protect soldiers -- soldiers trained to the teeth to defend themselves -- by not doing something within the allegedly safe borders of a free America? Aren't our soldiers fighting abroad to protect Americans' right to speak freely -- and even burn a book? 

The President of the United States, and many folks like him, take umbrage at the rumor -- the mere rumor -- that a man might burn a book. And then, as Muslims riot overseas and kill people in protest of that rumor -- a mere rumor -- the President of the United States, and many folks like him, say nothing. 

Who are the Islamophobes? 

Sadly, no one seems to care. So be it.