I have waited a few weeks before weighing in on the brouhaha that has developed over the comments made by Army Lt. General William G. “Jerry” Boykin, the Bush administration’s Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. I wanted to make sure of my words, because the way Boykin was treated has much to teach us about how the left uses codes of political correctness to advance their agenda.
We have to learn how to shrug off charges such as those made against Boykin or we will be disarmed in the culture wars.
Boykin had an impressive resume before this flap. According to syndicated columnist Tony Blankley, he rose from Delta Force commando to a leadership position in the top-secret Joint Special Operations Command and the CIA, to command of the Army’s Special Forces. What brought him to the public’s attention was not these accomplishments, but comments he made at prayer breakfasts to Christian church groups in Oklahoma, Oregon, and Florida about the nature of our struggle with Muslim terrorists. Boykin said the terrorists come from the “principalities of darkness,” that they are “demonic,” and that they hate us because “we’re a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian, and the enemy is a guy named Satan.” The general also recalled the time when he was engaged in military efforts against a Somali warlord who boasted that the Americans would not prevail against him because Allah would protect him. Said Boykin, “My God is bigger than his God. I knew my God was a real God, and his was an idol.”
The reaction was instant and intense. The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and various Muslim leaders called for his removal from office. Most of the Democrats running for the presidency joined the chorus, with Howard Dean in the lead. Dean informed us that “the American flag does not belong to Gen. Boykin.” Joe Lieberman announced that “the war on terror is a war on terrorists, not religion.” John Kerry called Boykin “un-American.”
President Bush did not concede to the demands for Boykin’s resignation, but he made clear to the press that he did not agree with Gen. Boykin’s view of Islam. He said that Boykin’s view “didn’t reflect my opinion. Look, it just doesn’t reflect what the government thinks.” Condoleeza Rice was sent out to the Sunday talk shows to reinforce the point.
Before going further, let us concede that Boykin’s comments were, well, injudicious. The old quip about a diplomat being someone sent out to lie gracefully for his government cannot be taken literally. At least not too literally. But it does focus on a fact of life. Those who represent us in the world arena must be careful not to unnecessarily offend our allies. Doing that sometimes requires that they not say everything on their minds, even when it is the truth. This is a case in point. Boykin is not a diplomat in the technical sense, but he should have been aware that there would be Muslim leaders who would fly off the handle and misinterpret what he said; and that opponents of the Bush administration would seize upon his words and take them out of context for political purposes. That said, let us not lose sight of the fact that what Boykin said is the truth.
That attack on him was a classic case of the selective indignation of the American left. In what way? First of all, Boykin was speaking about terrorists who are Muslim, not all Muslims. They are the people he called demonic and agents of Satan. They are the ones he said hate us because we are a Christian nation. What’s wrong with saying that? They are and they do. Listen to their words. Listen to the passages from the Koran they quote to whip up their followers. Boykin was not talking about the Muslim leaders in Iraq who are working with us to set up a new government to replace Saddam Hussein’s. He was not talking about American Muslims in the United States military who are playing a key role in that effort. Whereas, if asked, he probably would include in his comments American Muslims in our military who have engaged in acts of treason out of loyalty to the Muslim terrorists’ cause. Boykin knows the difference.
Then why didn’t he make those distinctions? Why didn’t he preface his statements by making clear that he was not talking about all Muslims? Why didn’t he make the point repeatedly in his speeches? No doubt, Boykin would do just that if had the opportunity to turn back the clock. I think that he would also make those distinctions if he were involved in an afternoon-long seminar on Muslim terrorists, rather than giving a short speech at a prayer breakfast. But, come on: that kind of precision and specificity is not demanded of other public figures by the media establishment who attacked Boykin.
Check the record. No one insists that the critics of violence against abortion providers not use the term “anti-abortion extremists” unless they regularly insert a disclaimer that not everyone who opposes abortion supports violence. The media would insist that everyone understands that the term “anti-abortion extremist” does not apply to everyone who is pro-life. The same standard applies when the terms “white supremacists” or “Christian fundamentalists” are used to criticize certain segments of American society for narrow-mindedness. Those who use these terms are not accused by the establishment media of creating the impression that all whites and all Christians are included in the criticism. Why then is the same leeway not given to those who refer to “Muslim terrorists” or “Muslim extremists”?
Because those who act outraged by the use of these terms are seeking to disarm their political opponents. They are looking for a political edge. Being fair-minded has nothing to do with their protestations.
Likewise it is made to appear that those who want something done to stop illegal immigration from Latin America are prejudiced against Hispanics; as if it is not plausible that someone could be opposed to the deleterious impact of illegal immigration upon the economy and governments of the American Southwest, while at the same favoring the enrichment of American life brought about by a controlled and reasonable flow of legal immigrants from Latin America. Similarly, critics of the impact of welfare upon the black family are often accused of being racist, without even taking into account the possibility that they are sincerely looking for a way to free inner-city families from the cycle of poverty brought about by the welfare system.
Here is how the game is played: Criticize illegal immigration and you are called prejudiced against Latinos. Criticize the high incidence of crime among American blacks and you are called racist. Criticize Muslims who interpret the Koran as an excuse to kill Americans and you are called a religious bigot.
Are these misrepresentations deliberate cheap shots? We can’t be sure of that. We can’t read minds. But we can insist that the charges don’t make sense, and that we are not going to be denied our right to engage in the debate over these issues as a consequence of name-calling from our opponents.
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
