Best of the Web Today - April 6, 2007
By JAMES TARANTO
In Praise of Jenny Ballantine
Our item yesterday on Jenny Ballantine, the 22-year-old University of New Hampshire undergrad made famous when Rush Limbaugh played her question at a John Edwards "town hall" meeting on his radio show, prompted this email from reader Nate Brown:
Miss Ballantine's inquiry and the ridiculous response from the Edwardses underscores the "me first" mentality that has been force-fed into my generation. We grew up hearing from boomers in authority positions that we could do anything we wanted, and that if it felt good, we should surely do it. From K-12, we were given the proverbial gold star not because we did something correctly, but because we were "special people." Those who went above and beyond were on the same level of those who did the bare minimum and achieved less. Furthermore, those who whined the loudest often received the biggest stars because the authority figures wouldn't dare destroy their self-esteem.
Flash forward to Miss Ballantine's brush with the Edwardses. She notes that she has to work, go to school, and--gasp!--struggle a bit to eventually taste success. Their response is the biggest gold star of all: a standing ovation that proves she alone is "special," even though millions of Americans are in her very position.
Such behavior by the Edwardses only enables a generation desirous of constant praise and gold stars. A true leader would explain that life's greatest accomplishments are sweetest after its most trying struggles. But once again, the liberal mindset teaches that just experiencing life deserves a standing ovation. I'm concerned for my generation when something really tough happens in our lifetime.
There is some social-science evidence to back up Brown's perception, as the Boston Globe reports:
With a recent study showing that today's college students are the most narcissistic and self-centered in decades, a small chorus of professionals is offering a bold response: We have no one to blame but ourselves.
"Things went too far," says psychologist Jean Twenge, lead author of the study and a professor at San Diego State University.
What she means is that parents overcorrected for the harshness of a previous generation that preferred children to be "seen and not heard." She points to the soccer trophies that coaches hand out to all team members just for showing up rather than to a few for outstanding athleticism, and to a song taught in a colleague's daughter's preschool to the tune of "Frère Jacques": "I am special/I am special/Look at me."
"If you're that child, it's not surprising that pretty soon you start to believe it," says Twenge, whose new book, "Generation Me," examines feelings of entitlement among young Americans.
In her analysis, which uses a questionnaire that has been administered to college students periodically since 1982, a nationwide sample of 16,000 students choose among 80 statements to best describe themselves--for instance, "I think I am a special person," or, "I am no better or no worse than most people." Thirty percent more students had elevated narcissism in the 2006 survey than in 1982, although the numbers have been steadily creeping up over the years.
We would have thought the baby boomers were the most narcissistic generation, but perhaps that is unfair to the vast bulk of them. The stereotypical "baby boomer"--Pinch Sulzberger, say--is typical only of a minority of his age cohort, but it is a minority with an outsized, and generally baneful, influence over America's elite cultural institutions. The narcissism of today's young adults is probably a consequence of the diffusion of Sulzbergerian self-absorption through institutions including the media and higher education.
This point came across yesterday when Limbaugh interviewed Jenny Ballantine, who turns out to be a much more sympathetic figure than she had appeared at the Edwards event. Limbaugh challenged her on her complaint about the prevalence of "hate and prejudice and racism," and it turns out she was merely regurgitating the nonsense her professors had fed her:
Limbaugh: There's always going to be racism. There's always going to be prejudice. There's always going to be bad guys. There are always going to be enemies. There are always going to be reprobates.
Ballantine: There's always going to be war, too, and I understand the reason for war. I actually enjoyed Machiavelli,
"The Prince," very much so, and I really appreciate his philosophies, and that's what a lot of people use when they engage in war and the aftermath of it, and I respect war, and I understand why there is a need for it, and I understand why there's a need to push for democracy, and I understand the gap that occurred and happened--the widening gap I should say--with discrimination and so forth. It's all very interesting.
Limbaugh: But it's not. See, there is no widening gap of discrimination. It's getting better. See, your historical perspective, as with most people, most people, began the day you were born. You're 22 years old. You're going to have to really study because history education is pretty inept in this country, particularly in high school, but the discrimination that existed in this country in the '40s and '50s, even before, is far, far worse. So much progress has been made in all this! Racism is far less than it was. Prejudice--
Ballantine: Maybe it's because of the multicultural theory class I'm taking right now [laughs]. I think--
Limbaugh: Well, you're exactly right. You are. Way to go. The multicultural curricula is designed to get you feeling full of chaos and--
Ballantine: Right.
Limbaugh: --tumult over the unfairness and the injustice of the country, because the teachers--the people that believe in it--want that exact thing to happen in your mind.
Ballantine: I hope my professor is not listening to this, but I've always-- This is how I feel. She says, "Think outside the box." However, it's "thinking outside the box" on her terms, on her perspective, and the books that we're reading that we're engaged in, it's just full of, as you say, chaos, and it's just full of all these, you know, "This happened and this happened! Oh, God," and it's just like, "OK, we've addressed that. Why don't we start establishing legislation or whatever else, the Senate, to start working or progress or why don't we go ahead and state what the progress has been since we're just such a screwed-up nation back in the '40s and '50s?" I just don't understand the literature that we've been reading, and it's just been frustrating--and I'm not the only one who feels that way in my class and it's just been really different.
Limbaugh: Well, you are warming my heart.
The ideologies of "self-esteem" and "multiculturalism" are two sides of the same nihilistic coin. "Self-esteem" devalues achievement and responsibility, which are the sources of genuine self-respect. And "multiculturalism" it is merely a pose of opposition to one's own culture; it entails no real regard for different cultures.
We were too hasty to mock Jenny Ballantine yesterday. What seemed a show of self-absorption was really a sincere if clumsy attempt by a confused young woman to connect with the real world. Three cheers to Rush Limbaugh for helping her along the way.
Finally, Mr. Fox Gets the Job
On June 5, 1999, the New York Times published an editorial praising the president for using a recess appointment to install James Hormel, a gay-rights activist, as ambassador to Luxembourg:
President Clinton took an appropriate stand against bigotry yesterday by giving James Hormel a recess appointment as the nation's Ambassador to Luxembourg. Mr. Hormel's nomination had been blocked for 20 months by a handful of Senate Republicans disturbed by his sexual orientation.
The credentials of Mr. Hormel, heir to a meat-packing fortune and a former dean at the University of Chicago Law School who has been active in civic, educational and political causes, were not the sticking point. There were sufficient Senate votes to confirm him had Trent Lott, the Senate majority leader, allowed a vote. . . .
Under the constitutional provision that allows Presidents to bypass the confirmation process when Congress is in recess, Mr. Hormel can remain as Ambassador until late next year. His shameful treatment by Mr. Lott and his G.O.P. colleagues will be remembered long beyond that.
The New York Times editorial board, however, seems to have conveniently forgotten the Hormel incident. Today the paper weighs in on another president's recess appointment of an ambassador to a Low Country:
President Bush resorted to an old political trick this week, using recess appointments to evade Senate confirmation votes that he was sure to lose. . . .
The most bitterly resented but least important appointment sent Sam Fox, a major Republican donor, to Belgium as ambassador. Mr. Fox contributed $50,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group whose vicious ads during the 2004 campaign lied about Senator John Kerry's war record and helped win President Bush a second term. It is common for administrations to reward big donors with ambassadorships. But this appointment is a deliberate thumb in the eye of Senator Kerry and fellow Democrats who were poised to reject the nominee. . . .
With nominees of such dubious merit, it is no wonder that Mr. Bush resorted to an end run around the Senate. The American public will almost certainly pay the price.
The assertion that Fox "was sure to lose" a confirmation vote in the Senate is either mistaken or dishonest. As we noted yesterday, Sens. Claire McCaskill and Joe Lieberman had both announced they would support Fox, which would give him 51 votes assuming no Republican defections. The Democrats planned to block Fox's confirmation by bottling the nomination up in committee, just as the Republicans did to Hormel.
Also as in the case of Hormel, Fox's credentials are not in question--or at least the Times does not question them. The only objection it offers to his nomination is that it hurts John Kerry's feelings.
Given the Times's worldview, which is that any opposition to gay rights is invidious, we can understand why the paper found the Republicans' blocking of Hormel worse than the Democrats' blocking of Fox. But no one can dispute that the latter is exceedingly petty. And the Times looks even more risibly partisan than usual in calling recess appointments "an end run around the Senate" when a Republican uses them and a "constitutional provision" when a Democrat does.
A Pro-Life Victory
Rudy Giuliani has done a remarkably good job of appealing to socially conservative voters despite his record of liberalism on some social issues, notably abortion and gay rights. But here's something that may change that, from CNN:
Giuliani told CNN Wednesday he supports public funding for some abortions, a position he advocated as mayor and one that will likely put the GOP presidential candidate at odds with social conservatives in his party.
"Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected," Giuliani said in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash in Florida's capital city.
A video clip of the then-mayoral candidate issuing a similar declaration in 1989 in a speech to the "Women's Coalition" appeared recently on the Internet.
"There must be public funding for abortions for poor women," Giuliani says in the speech that is posted on the video sharing site YouTube. "We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decisions about abortion."
When asked directly Wednesday if he still supported the use of public funding for abortions, Giuliani said "Yes."
"If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right," he explained, "If that's the status of the law, yes."
Abortion is of course a "constitutional right" under current case law. Giuliani seems to be asserting that a constitutional right implies an entitlement to a subsidy for those who lack the material resources to exercise the right.
This is true of some such rights--for example, the right of criminal defendants to legal representation. But it is not true of "negative" rights--i.e., rights that simply say the government may not prevent people from doing something. The First Amendment doesn't mandate that Uncle Sam subsidize failing newspapers, nor does the 21st require him to buy the next round for a broke drunkard.
Blogger Robert George points out that Giuliani's position, as stated here, puts him to the left of erstwhile Angry Left teen heartthrob Markos "Kos" Moulitsas. Writes Moulitsas:
It's interesting to argue that if it's Constitutionally protected, it should be funded by the taxpayers. One doesn't follow the other. If it does, I want my government-issued firearm today. There are clearly policy arguments to be made for such public funding, but they have nothing to do with the Constitution.
So not only has Giuliani killed his primary chances in one fell swoop, he has also betrayed extreme ignorance about how the Constitution works.
For once we agree completely with Moulitsas. What's interesting, though, is that 27 years ago, four liberal Supreme Court justices also displayed "extreme ignorance about how the Constitution works."
In Harris v. McRae (1980), the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits most federal funding of abortion through the Medicaid program. The vote was not 9-0, as it should have been if the issue were as open-and-shut as Moulitsas seems to think, but 5-4, with Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens dissenting. (Stevens took a narrower view than the ultraliberal trio, arguing that the asserted constitutional right to a subsidy applied only to abortions that were "medically necessary.")
Blackmun, author of Roe v. Wade, was particularly emphatic, quoting his own past hysterical pronouncements (though not the Constitution itself) in claiming that the Constitution mandated abortion subsidies (citations omitted):
I join the dissent of Mr. Justice Brennan and agree wholeheartedly with his and Mr. Justice Stevens' respective observations and descriptions of what the Court is doing in this latest round of "abortion cases." I need add only that I find what I said in dissent in Beal v. Doe (1977) and its two companion cases, Maher v. Roe and Poelker v. Doe, continues for me to be equally pertinent and equally applicable in these Hyde Amendment cases. There is "condescension" in the Court's holding that "she may go elsewhere for her abortion"; this is "disingenuous and alarming"; the Government "punitively impresses upon a needy minority its own concepts of the socially desirable, the publicly acceptable, and the morally sound"; the "financial argument, of course, is specious"; there truly is "another world 'out there,' the existence of which the Court, I suspect, either chooses to ignore or fears to recognize"; the "cancer of poverty will continue to grow"; and "the lot of the poorest among us," once again, and still, is not to be bettered.
Twenty-seven years ago, this was the view of a Republican Supreme Court appointee. Today a leading figure of the Angry Left dismisses it out of hand as a reflection of "extreme ignorance." On this aspect of the abortion debate, at least, the pro-life side seems to have won a decisive victory.
Heat for Our Time
The Associated Press reports on a strong statement made by Julian Vandeburie, a Belgian delegate to an international conference in Brussels:
Vandeburie compared the world's current situation to the Munich peace conference in 1938, when Britain and France had a choice between confronting Hitler and appeasing him: "We are at the same moment. We have to decide on doing something or not."
Wow, we can imagine Tony Blair saying something like that, but we thought the Continental Western Europeans were pretty united in wanting to appease Islamist terrorists. Maybe there's hope for Europe after all.
Oh wait, sorry. Vandeburie wasn't talking about Islamist terrorists. He was talking about "global warming."
In the Spring? No Way!
"Scientists: Lake Superior Warming Rapidly"--headline, CNN.com, April 6
Breaking News From 1963
"Shooting in Car at JFK Leaves 1 Dead"--headline, Associated Press, April 6
Because if They Weren't, They'd Be Big Dogs!
"Researchers have finally solved one of the great canine mysteries: Why are small dogs small?"--Los Angeles Times, April 6
'Hey, What's This Doing Here?'
"Royal Campaign Stumbles on Proposal for Youth-Labor Contract"--headline, Bloomberg, April 6
Why'd They Let the Other 7,998 Go?
"8,000 Pot Plants Found; Two Arrested"--headline, San Francisco Chronicle, April 6
That Sounds Unsporting
"Disabled Turkey Hunt to Be Held"--headline, Moberly (Mo.) Monitor-Index, April 3
Affirmative-Action Air Bags
"UMC Uses Race to Promote Child Car Safety"--headline, KXNT-AM Web site (Las Vegas), April 5
You Call This Fair and Balanced?
"Fox Attacks Three People at Suffolk Auto Dealer, Restaurant"--headline, Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk), April 6
Maybe a Banana Would Cause Less Disruption
"Apple Probe Will Shake Up Whole Music Industry"--headline, MarketWatch.com, April 4
News You Can Use
"Brighten Up Your Makeup"--headline, Argus Leader (Sioux Falls, S.D.), April 6
Bottom Stories of the Day
o "Doctor Gives Earwax Tips"--headline, KXAS-TV Web site (Dallas), April 3
o "Easter Egg Disappoints Wyoming Artists"--headline, Associated Press, April 4
o "Boulder Official Needn't Resign"--headline, Denver Post, April 6
o "Renter Tired of Old, Smelly, Dirty Carpet"--headline, Chicago Sun-Times, April 1
o "Presidential Bid by Pataki Appears a Fading Prospect"--headline, CQPolitics.com, April 5
'You Came in That Thing? You're Braver Than I Thought.'
The Associated Press reports from Gillette, Wyo.:
Leah Vader and Lynne Huskinson, a lesbian couple who got married in Canada last August, sent a letter recently to their state legislator decrying a Wyoming bill that would deny recognition of same-sex marriages. The lawmaker read the letter on the floor of the Legislature.
Soon after, the local paper interviewed the couple on Ash Wednesday and ran a story and pictures of them with ash on their foreheads, a mark of their Roman Catholic faith.
It wasn't long after that that the couple received a notice from their parish church telling them they have been barred from receiving Communion. . . .
Huskinson questioned why Catholics having premarital sex and using birth control are not barred from receiving Communion, too. But the parish priest said the difference is this: The other Catholics are "not going around broadcasting, `Hey I'm having sex outside of marriage' or `I'm using birth control.' "
Not being Catholic, we have no dog in this fight, but we were surprised to hear that Leah Vader is a lesbian. She seemed so happy with Han Solo!
URL for this article: opinionjournal.com |
