Since David Horowitz, a former Black Panther supporter and civil rights activist turned firebrand conservative, submitted his ad to campus papers nationwide (timed to coincide with Black History Month), America's chattering classes haven't known a peaceful moment. That's too bad, not because debate is to be feared, but because this particular debate is more schoolyard taunting than a serious civic exercise intended to confront and judiciously settle a matter of national importance. To follow the reparations debate is to be subjected to more anti-intellectualism, pretzel logic, and bare racism than anyone should ever have the misfortune to endure.
Every new article makes me a little more ashamed to be an American. The debacle at Brown, spurred by Horowitz's ad, proves the point. So far, according to Horowitz, 18 college papers have rejected the ad, including those at Harvard, Columbia, Minnesota, and Virginia. Only four ran it and managed to avoid controversy. Enraged protesters descended on the editorial offices of some, and several offered abject apologies for having run the ad. So let's get straight what the college kids believe: Censorship is wrong when it silences liberals and minorities, but right when it silences Horowitz?
The word "reparations" means to repair, to compensate, to atone. Yet the most often repeated, self-serving, and unexamined tenet in the anti-reparations arsenal is that reparations are mere revenge and graft. "Reparations advocates," wrote Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby in his two-part indictment, "usually start the bidding at around $1.5 trillion."
Let's start with Jacoby's figure of $1.5 trillion. By focusing on this inflammatorily distracting price tag, Jacoby reduces reparations demands to money lust, while invoking a racist stereotype that blacks are thieves looking for 'handouts' like welfare and affirmative action. It cynically manipulates his audience to feel either revulsion or embarrassment, so they'll stop thinking clearly and just go politically Pavlovian.
I took Logic 101: Either reparations are justified or they're not. If they're justified, then they will cost what they cost. If they're unjustified, there's no reason to be sidetracked by dollar signs, which only taint and derail the entire discussion. (So far, reparationists are only demanding studies.) Only by tacitly assuming that reparations are unjustified can Jacoby and his fellow travelers focus their corrosive, derisive analysis on how much they will cost. Anti-reparationists refuse to see the debate as a heartfelt one, but rather as a conscious scam.
Writing in Horowitz's FrontPage magazine, anti-reparations commentator Richard Poe said, "...after decades of welfare, affirmative action, frivolous race-discrimination suits and Jesse-Jackson-style corporate blackmail schemes, Americans are beginning to grasp that "reparations"--in all their various forms--are nothing but an elaborate con. "The more we give, the more they want," says Poe.
This type of anti-intellectual double whammy dangerously weakens our nation and makes a lie of America. First, Poe says, sans argument or explanation, that reparations are nothing more than blackmail. Second, and much more important, America's wealth, from infrastructure to the gold reserves at Ft. Knox, belongs to white people, or, at least, to non-blacks. Read: Whites are America; blacks are not. The "we" who angelically give defines who the Americans are. The "they" who just take and take and take are not. Ask "us Americans" for charity? Who's "us"?