Michelle Malkin Is A Crazy Reactionary

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!

I have a hard time understanding the right wing’s mindset in this country. On one hand, conservatives feel they can’t possibly overstate how awful the government is, how government involvement in anything can only make that thing worse, and how Reagan was dead-on when he said that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

On the other hand, these same conservatives will watch World War II veteran Howard Zinn’s The People Speak on History (channel), which is an assault on the very real evils perpetrated by the American government throughout its history, and recoil in horror at the portrayal of the government as capable of such immorality, incompetence, and dastardly deceit. In case you missed it, here’s the documentary’s synopsis:

Democracy is not a spectator sport. Using dramatic and musical performances of the letters, diaries and speeches of everyday Americans, THE PEOPLE SPEAK gives voice to those who spoke up for social change throughout U.S. history, forging a nation from the bottom up with their insistence on equality and justice. Narrated by Howard Zinn and based on his best-selling books, A People’s History of the United States and Voices of a People's History of the United States, THE PEOPLE SPEAK illustrates the relevance of these passionate historical moments to our society today and reminds us never to take liberty for granted.

Among those horrified by this concept is Michelle Malkin, who decries Zinn’s “Marxist education project”:

Teachers are not supposed to teach facts in the school of Zinn. “There is no such thing as pure fact,” Zinn asserts. Educators are not supposed to emphasize individual academic achievement. They are supposed to “empower” student collectivism by emphasizing “the role of working people, women, people of color and organized social movements.” School officials are not facilitators of intellectual inquiry, but leaders of “social struggle.”

(Side note: I was unable to find the source for Zinn’s alleged “pure fact” remark. I did a Google search of that sentence, and the only returns I got were of Malkin’s column.)

These overwhelmingly reactionary comments indicate that Malkin is way off the mainstream political spectrum, placing her on the far, far right, somewhere between Pat Buchanan and Franco. The idea that it’s somehow awful to try to inspire children by stressing “the role of working people, women, people of color and organized social movements” in American history shows an incredible contempt for the American people, and a distaste for popular social movements. Malkin is surely aware that the government had to be dragged—kicking and screaming—into abolishing slavery, granting women’s suffrage, implementing workplace safety standards and minimum wage, desegregating the schools, and so on, by average Americans coordinating their efforts through “social struggle.” Governments do not simply hand out rights to people. Rights are won because people fight for them tooth and nail until their voices become too loud and powerful for the government to ignore any longer.

But Malkin, who ironically is a Filipino-American born to immigrants, will have none of this. For her, the role of everyday Americans in the ongoing struggle against the government for a better life is best ignored so as to make the population feel helpless and marginalized. One would think that given her favorable view of the Tea Party protestors, Malkin would find The People Speak somewhat inspiring. I don’t expect her to agree with Zinn’s liberal views, but the fact that she ignores the most obvious and important lesson of the program—that the government is not going to change unless pressured by the people into doing so, and that democracy means more than voting every two or four years—suggests that Malkin is just a good old-fashioned statist.

And really, that’s what a lot of American conservatives have become: statists. One of the reasons I like Ron Paul, even though I don’t agree with a lot of his politics, is that he’s an actual conservative, which is more than I can say for the phonies who populate the Republican Party. During George W. Bush’s first term, I was quite convinced that most GOP members of Congress and a substantial portion of the American population would’ve followed the president right into fascism, no questions asked. There was seemingly no limit to the adoration many had for him, and consequently it was a very scary time in recent American history.

These considerations reveal an inherent contradiction in the modern American conservative ideology: government is bad, and the less of it, the better. But, taking a critical view of government from an historical perspective is wrong, anti-American, and perhaps Marxist.

Without question, a large part of the current mistrust of government by conservatives has to do with the fact that there’s a Democrat in the White House, who in the eyes of many of them, cannot possibly do anything right, except for deciding in favor of a troop surge in Afghanistan.

And perhaps there’s a lesson in that. An expansive health care initiative is met with revulsion from conservatives, but a plan to escalate a war is heartily welcomed. The latter ostensibly contributes to the “glory” of the state, while the former does not. As Wolf has previously observed on this site,

The fundamental hypothesis of Terror Management Theory (TMT) is that repression of mortality awareness is accomplished by two primary mechanisms; having faith in a particular cultural worldview (or shared conception of reality) and self-esteem striving (see e.g., Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1997; Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Solomon, Arndt, & Shimmel, 2004, for reviews). Cultural worldviews imbue the psyche with a sense of meaning by providing explanations for existence, standards of acceptable behavior, and the potential to transcend physical death; either symbolically, through contributing to something greater and more enduring than one’s self (e.g., a nation, political ideology, family), or literally, by having faith in an afterlife (Arndt & Vess, 2008). TMT sees cultural worldview defense as essential to the establishment and maintenance of self-esteem, which also serves to buffer basic existential concerns. To date, an impressive body of evidence has lent support for the roles that self-esteem and worldview defense play on attenuating mortality concerns.

Thus, statism is one possible manifestation of the “repression of mortality awareness.”

We all know how the 9/11 attacks led to nauseating displays of flag-waving in this country. It was, in effect, the perfect terror management experiment conducted on a massive scale. After the citizens of this country were reminded of their mortality, they could not help but display glowing pride in our nation and also the simultaneous desire to destroy some common enemy that threatened their worldviews. Patriotism is just one example of something that provides people with a sense of symbolic immortality. Feeling patriotic with regard to American values, for example, enables people to immerse themselves in a part of a greater whole, a whole that is much larger and certainly more enduring than their individual existences. When we are reminded of death, those with differing worldviews (e.g., Muslims, Zoroastrians, the French, etc) are all viewed with more open hostility.

Given these insights, it is not surprising that right wingers reacted negatively to speeches Obama gave earlier this year in France and Egypt in which he stressed the importance of international diplomacy and consensus-building, while admitting that America “has shown arrogance” in the international arena. The president was subsequently accused of “apologizing” for America, and bitterly condemned by Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal, where the latter invoked the insights of war criminal Henry Kissinger about what makes a great statesman.

Howard Zinn’s project—just like his A People’s History of the United States—is a departure from classic conceptualizations of American history, which have the awful habit of focusing exclusively on presidents, statesmen, businessmen, and other people at the top of the social hierarchy. The People Speak seeks to capture the immortal words of the people—the underdogs—in their fight for the basic human and civil rights that had to be wrested from government, which, by its very nature, is averse to change in virtually all forms.

Michelle Malkin’s staggeringly reactionary statements should be abhorred by any freedom-loving democrat and champion of people’s rights. States are not moral actors; they are outlets through which elites exercise power. The United States is no different. But to teach this elementary idea amounts to a “Marxist education project,” according to Malkin. And to teach, for example, that James Madison and the other framers of the Constitution were quite concerned with the property rights of the wealthy (including them) being protected from the majority of the population, also amounts to a “Marxist education project.” Of course, it does not matter at all that one can read the Federalist Papers and James Madison’s Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, and plainly see that this is indeed what was going on. All that matters is that merely pointing this out is divisive, and therefore not conducive to national unity, which is necessary for the glorification of the state.

To properly glorify the state, a relatively unblemished historical record is required for doctrinal purposes. The function of Malkin’s “reactionary education project” would not be to impart an accurate historical account of the United States and its government, but to indoctrinate the next generation of shameless and unquestioning flag-wavers who will repudiate “the role of working people, women, people of color and organized social movements” in American history. In short, Malkin’s history is a history of power, for power, and by power.

So that’s what concerns Malkin. Here’s what concerns Howard Zinn:

“I’m worried that students will take their obedient place in society and look to become successful cogs in the wheel—let the wheel spin them around as it wants without taking a look at what they’re doing. I’m concerned that students not become passive acceptors of the official doctrine that's handed down to them from the White House, the media, textbooks, teachers and preachers.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

- Max