THE TALEBAN-IFICATION OF JOHN WALKER:
I notice that Andrew Sullivan has now conceded a defeat of a sort, issuing a gracious (really!) partial retraction of his version of the "cultural liberalism created John Walker" theory. The letters he received on the subject (a good read in their own right, by the way) have persuaded him that the situation is too complex to fit into his original "blue/red," "left/right" scheme. My take: I acknowledge this complexity (and I think the "blue/red" angle is hard to sustain) but I think he should partially retract the partial retraction.
The main point which seems to have given him pause is the observation that Walker is more like a right-wing religious nut than he is like his permissive "progressive" parents. The tempting conclusion most amusingly expounded by the inimitable Tim Blair, is that Walker is an Alex Keaton; that he is, as Katha Pollitt's alarmingly patriotic daughter was described on the old email list, a Meathead in Reverse. "My son the right-wing fundamentalist nut," a liberal parent's worst nightmare. So the principles of teenaged rebellion, encouraged by multiculturalism and unhindered by even minimal adult supervision, demanded that Walker figure out his parents' greatest fear and try to put it into practice. (In that regard, he managed to hit that ball further out of the park than any teenager in the history of the American family; most just wear enormous trousers and get a tongue-stud.) The problem is, the Walker parents don't seem all that upset about the Islamo-fascist part, and shockingly perhaps, are not much more disturbed by the treason part. In fact, his father has expressed a qualified admiration that he "followed his own way" regardless of where it might lead, casting treason as a form of self-actualization.
It seems to me that this is one of those cases where the left/right scheme obscures more than it elucidates. It's not possible to place this complex of multiculturalism, moral neutrality, self-help, "free to be you and me" cartoon relativism, laissez-faire pedagogy, totalitarianism, fundamentalism, treason, etc. anywhere on the spectrum by determining whether it's more opposite or apposite to the sensibilities of Marin County.
Glenn Reynolds is right to point out the hypocrisy embodied in Richard Cohen's feeble attempt to refute Shelby Steele. (What's more, the Cohen piece is entirely misconceived: you can't call it "the conservative take" when there isn't any other "take" to compare it to, unless you count the brainless musings of a few dullards on "San Francisco's Fine Tradition of Critical Thinking" as the counterpoint.) Still, it's hard to disagree with Cohen on this at least: you can't draw much of a generalization about the "children of left-liberal culture" from the single, uniquely depraved case of John Walker, especially since 100% of all of Bay Area kids besides him somehow managed to avoid growing up to be Islamo-fascist traitors.
But if John Walker is, for now at least, unexplainable, Steele's and Sullivan's point becomes hard to avoid when we turn to his elders. From what I've heard them say, I get the impression that Walker's parents were unable or disinclined to take any position whatsoever on his activities, beyond a bland, contentless "do what thou wilt" and "to thine own self be true." They seemed unable to recognize the danger that the budding totalitarian in their midst could cause to himself and to others. His father didn't feel he could take a position one way or another (the indecision thus becoming the decision) on whether his son ought to drop out of high school in order to devote himself more completely to the cause of Islamo-fascism. When John made his choice, his father bankrolled it, sending him to Yemen to study terrorism just as a normal dad would send his son to Stanford to study political science. Astoundingly, they do not seem to have learned the error of any of these ways, and still parrot the cliches of moral relativism with urbane indulgence. But most astounding of all, even now that these errors have been made plain as the blue day, other "grown-ups," the sort of people who write articles for major newspapers and the editors who decide to publish them, have responded by extolling the virtues of moral blindness, presenting the inability to tell right from wrong as the embodiment of "critical thinking."
I don't see how you can avoid the conclusion that "cultural liberalism" is a factor in these failings, both pre- and post- John Walker. And Andrew Sullivan is more right than wrong, unlike Cohen and the San Francisco Chronicle.
Posted by Dr. Frank at December 14, 2001 08:32 AM | TrackBack