The Maturity of America after 9/11

What is striking about the nine years since 9/11 is how mature the nation has been, both its governing institutions and its population. So scarce was hysteria and "Islamophobia" in Washington that the Left had to invent it. Consider this from a Frank Rich column in the New York Times on the eve of the fifth anniversary of 9/11:

The [Bush] presidential press secretary, Ari Fleischer, condemned Bill Maher's irreverent comic response to 9/11 by reminding "all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do." Fear itself — the fear that "paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance," as F.D.R. had it — was already being wielded as a weapon against Americans by their own government.

Paul Krugman jumped on the same remark of Fleischer's. Did the Administration wield fear as a weapon against Americans? Christopher Hitchens demonstrated in a subsequent column in Slate that this was pure poppycock. Fleischer's remark occurred during a 2001 press conference. He was asked first about a Republican Congressman's buffoonish remark, and a little later about an equally buffoonish remark by Bill Maher.

Here is what Congressman John Cooksey (R-LA) said:

If I see someone come in and he's got a diaper on his head and a fan belt around that diaper on his head, that guy needs to be pulled over and checked.

When asked whether the President had communicated with Congressman Cooksey, or had a message for Americans, Fleischer said this:

The President's message is to all Americans. It's important for all Americans to remember the traditions of our country that make us so strong and so free, our tolerance and openness and acceptance.

Here is a later question, paraphrasing Bill Maher:

As Commander-in-Chief, what was the President's reaction to television's Bill Maher, in his announcement that members of our armed forces who deal with missiles are cowards, while the armed terrorists who killed 6,000 unarmed (sic) are not cowards, for which Maher was briefly moved off a Washington television station?

Here is Fleischer's reply:

I'm aware of the press reports about what he's said. I have not seen the actual transcript of the show itself. But assuming the press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it's unfortunate. And that's why—there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party—they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.

Fleischer's answer was measured and careful. His condemnation of Maher's remark is, if anything, far too gentle and it has an if Maher said what you say he said qualification.

As Hitchens notes, the latter part of Fleischer's remark, the part which Frank Rich found damning, is explicitly directed back to Congressman Cooksey. Fleischer was doing no more than urging Americans to be responsible in their speech and actions. He did that after emphasizing American "tolerance and openness and acceptance".

It became part of the mythology of the American Left that Fleischer was threatening or questioning the patriotism of anyone who questioned the Bush Administration. Oddly, Rich and Krugman don't seem to be alarmed when about a half dozen members of the Obama Administration, including the President himself and one of his generals, openly urged a Florida preacher not to do something he had every constitutional right to do.

Not everyone is so forgiving. Charles Lane, in the Washington Post, takes the Administration to task:

President Obama was certainly right to be disgusted by "Reverend" Terry Jones's threat to stage a public burning of the Koran, a plan that was mean, stupid, intolerant, and spookily evocative of Hitlerian book bonfires. But I am also troubled by Obama's efforts to hector Jones into changing his mind. Everyone should worry when presidents invoke wartime security, or similar arguments, against constitutionally protected free speech, even -- or especially -- when the speech is offensive, outrageous and unpopular.

Lane's argument is reasonable, but I am not troubled by the Administration's response to Jones' stunt. I suspect it was a bad idea to recognize this bozo, but it wasn't stupid and it certainly wasn't authoritarian. Like Ari Fleischer, President Obama was merely pleading for responsible behavior.

Both the Bush and the Obama Administration have drawn a distinction between what people are free to say and do and what it is irresponsible to say and do. The American people and the people of New York, to judge from polls, are fully capable of making the same distinction. Most of us seem to think that the building of an Islamic Center near Ground Zero is a bad idea. Some of us are offended by the idea. Almost all of us think that the people who own the land have the right to build the center, and that government has no legitimate authority to forbid it. That distinction is the heart of liberal democracy. America after 9/11 has shown a maturity of which we have a right to be proud.

Comments

[Jaded Athesit]

Post this syrupy drivel when your grandaughter is "betrothed" to one of the Islamic Saracens. I pity those as feckless as you.

[George Mason]

I think this is a well reasoned post that rises above the petty blather that is so much of what we get in the media promoted as political debate. It is also enlightening to compare the measured response of Ari Fleischer with what we witness today.
The Terry Jones story should never have become what it is today. The major media outlets and their friends in major politics exploited this for their own ends. They produced a major media driven controversy out of a small localized event. That being said there did not appear to be a national groundswell of support for Jones actions. Without the intervention of the media Terry Jones would have been lucky to attract 50 people to his little bonfire. The only coverage would have been some subterranean rumblings from the WEB.

[KB]

Thanks, George. I think you identify the right culprit. If the media had ignored this clown, the Administration would not have had to make a decision. You are certainly right that there was no "groundswell of support" for Jones. I read somewhere that he actually lost half of his own congregation.

But just look at the comment above by Jaded Athesit [sic]. It can type!

[dhmosquito]

Thanks for the post, Ken. I wish the media would devise a "clown detector" and ignore the Jones-like events. BTW, some administration spokespersons are not so measured/mature in their responses to contemporary events. Witness Kathleen Sebelius. Evidently health insurance companies are not accorded free speech as this administration has seen fit to prohibit them from blaming premium increases on "obamacare". This, in spite of the fact that additional benefits are mandated immediately. Remember, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin has no plans to repeal "obamacare". cheers chuck

[Donald Pay]

Hitchens is a great journalist, by which I mean, he usually checks facts and puts them in the right context. Even if you don't agree with his opinion on matters, you can usually trust the factual content of his pieces. Krugman and Rich were writing several years distant from the original Fleischer comments, and they didn't understand the context of the remarks. What probably happened is that some intern dug up a few quotes which were going to be used to introduce or drive home a particular point. This happens a lot with top level bloviators. It's a little disappointing, though, when Krugman does it, because he ought to know better.

Still, KB, you seem to be committing the same sin. Much of Krugman's piece didn't have that much to do with Fleischer's comment, and was about events in 2004. That he used Fleischer's comment without knowing the context is unfortunate, but one mistake doesn't mean the opinion should be automatically disregarded.

[KB]

Donald: you are very forgiving when it comes to people on the left. Neither Rich nor Krugman deserve it. Did either of them acknowledge their error or apologize for it? Not as far as I can tell.

Over the last year Krugman has shown a breath-taking lack of honesty in his columns. He accused Republicans of living "in a different universe, both morally and intellectually" because John Kyl argued that unemployment benefits might depress the employment rate. Yet Krugman made exactly that same point in his own economics textbook. Krugman accused Republicans of encouraging violence, yet the kind of language he pointed out was commonly used by Democrats as well as by himself. In the past Krugman warned about the United States following the Japanese example. Now, suddenly, the Japanese example is precisely a model for us to follow. Krugman spins like a top. He is either lost his reason, or has abandoned any concern with honesty, or both.

[Donald Pay]

The effect of unemployment benefits vary according to the level of unemployment in the country or region, the time period of unemployment (both at the individual and societal level), the amount of time individuals unemployed have spent in a particular field prior to being unemployed, the potential for retraining, the amount of savings available to the unemployed, the level of hiring in the economy in general and in particular fields in specific, etc.. The major problem with texts, as you probably know, is they are a mile wide and about two millimeters deep. Anyone who depends on intro college level textbooks for anything but a cursory understanding of a field are in deep, deep trouble, and anyone who thinks a statement in such a text is gospel is a fool.

[KB]

Donald: Krugman could have said that John Kyl and the Republican party in general misapplied his principle in opposing the extension of unemployment benefits in this situation. I am skeptical, but maybe a case could be made for that. Instead, he said that the Republicans were in a different moral and intellectual universe from Democrats. They were, in other words, stupid and morally bad for reasoning just as he himself had reasoned when writing his text. That is blatant dishonesty.

Krugman is a two-bit hack. He has given up any claim to be taken seriously, as I have demonstrated in my posts.