Generation Squeeb

But whether or not any of Wright's "controversial" statements have any validity at all is beside the point. The point is that a country that had any balls at all — that was secure enough in its patriotic self-image to stare vicious criticism right in the face and collectively decide for itself, in a state of sober reflection, what part of it was bullshit and what wasn't — such a country wouldn't do what it did in the case of the Wright flap, which is to panic instantly, collectively leap off the ground in terror like a bunch of silly bitches, and chase the criticism away in a torch-bearing mob with its eyes averted without even bothering to talk about what was actually said. Yet naturally this is what was done in this case; the very first response of the entire national media apparatus was to denounce Wright as a kind of living disease and shriekingly demand that Obama do the same.

These controversial occasions, it should be said, are favorites of the national punditry. They offer an opportunity for slothlike, couchbound columnists everywhere to dress themselves up in white-hot outrage and to pen long accusatory columns in a tone suggesting that all contentment and happiness in their lives will henceforth be impossible until the offending agent is fully and completely shunned by society. You get articles like the one written by Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe ("It's still a question of Wright and Wrong," March 19) in which Jacoby noted that if his rabbi had said such hateful things, his congregation would have risen as one and ridden him out of town on a rail; expressing disappointment that this had not happened at Obama's church full of appallingly approving black folk, Jacoby then expressed sorrow that Obama, who delivered a racial-reconciliation-themed speech this week echoing Martin Luther King (40 years after his death, mainstream America's current symbol of acceptable protest), would not reject a pastor who drew his inspiration not from King but seemingly from Malcolm X, James Cone and Louis Farrakhan (symbols of unacceptable protest).

This "clanging double standard," Jacoby wrote, "raises questions" (these milquetoast pundits never just say they think a guy sucks; they always say his behavior "raises questions") about Obama's character and judgment, and about his "fitness for the role of race-transcending healer." Now, me personally, as a white guy, I have to admire Jacoby — I'm not sure I'd have the balls to tell black America that it is permitted to criticize whitey in the style of Martin Luther King but not in the style of Malcolm X. I mean, no one sent my grandfather to be injected with syphillis at Tuskegee, or strung up my great-uncle for smiling at a white girl, so no matter what I actually think here, I'm keeping my mouth shut. But not Jacoby, and not the bulk of the media apparatus. They have no problem telling anyone, at any time, where the boundary lines of acceptable opinion are, and what the penalties are for straying beyond them.

Of course, this is not the first time that this kind of thing took place in this campaign; it's actually happened over and over again, with Farrakhan himself (when an exasperated Obama was forced to "reject" and "denounce" Farrakhan's rhetoric, as if mere "rejection" were not enough), with Geraldine Ferraro (when Obama aides demanded that Hillary denounce the ex-Veep hopeful for suggesting Obama was lucky to be a black candidate), and with End-Times enthusiast/right-wing pastor John Hagee in San Antonio, from whom John McCain was forced to make distancing statements. These sorts of denunciations also continue involving figures not connected to the candidates — the campaign by various women's groups to censure Chris Matthews for his supposed sexist remarks is a good example, as is the much-ballyhooed incident involving Don Imus, a landmark event in the history of herd-panic and rank hypocrisy.

Now, no one is suggesting that there shouldn't be some reaction to genuinely toxic ideas, or that all criticism of racist or unpatriotic comments is unfounded. But what we're getting with all of these scandals isn't a sober exchange of ideas but more of an ongoing attempt to instill in the public a sort of permanent fear of uncomfortable ideas, and to reduce public discourse to a kind of primitive biological mechanism, like the nervous system of a squid or a shellfish, one that recoils reflexively from any stimuli. And the campaign is where you really see this process at work full-time. It's something I noticed while spending so much of the last year (and, before, so much of the years 2003 and 2004) on the campaign trail talking to prospective voters, listening to their complaints and their fears and their (often fleeting) enthusiasms. During this time, I started to notice a pattern, comprised of several elements.

The first is a truly remarkable tendency of seemingly intelligent people to work themselves into genuine outrage over information they didn't even know about twenty minutes ago, until they heard it on television, or coming out of the mouths of a candidate.