Page Two: Quicksand

The time of the night riders is back – except now they ride just as proudly during the day, wearing no masks, as there is nothing that they care or need to hide. Burning crosses light up hilltops, but they also light up the hearts of those who believe that there is a knowable right and an equally knowable wrong. In their robes and righteousness, they know that they are not only right but on the side of right. This adamant certainty about the kinds of things that you can never be certain about – ideology, philosophy, religion – gives them shelter from all storms.

There are those who would argue that my constant uncertainty, sure of no truth, is self-defining, that the not knowing indicates a moral and ideological weakness. Knowing the truth, they argue, is easy – and it is better: It makes one more righteous and noble. Difficult moral decisions are not difficult when you are bathed in the light from within.

When one knows truth, one knows one's own rightness and can easily see the villainy of others. This certainty in the knowledge of truth and this perfect vision are the worst epidemics afflicting our society. Those who hold such beliefs think they can see so clearly because their world is black and white; everything is certain. In reality, not only does this world lack shades of gray but any colors. In order to be able to "see clearly," they must will themselves blind.

We do not act with impunity. We have responsibility. Self-certainty, especially when it is used as a way of blaming and condemning others, is the preferred religion of those who really love to hate, no matter what they say.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

There are those Second Amendment champions, the ones who fervently insist that there is no ambiguity to that amendment, when the only way to argue that it is completely clear is to be certain beyond God and solid rock that you know exactly what the Founding Fathers meant. Wouldn't it be great if these same people proved to be equal champions and just as generous in terms of interpreting the First Amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Film critic and filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard once said, "How can I hate John Wayne upholding [Barry] Goldwater and yet love him tenderly when abruptly he takes Natalie Wood into his arms in the last reel of The Searchers?"

Godard spoke of the children of Marx and Coca-Cola; I'm a child of the Cold War and movies. Some of my mother's rather large family leaned to the left, and some leaned very far in that direction (while others leaned just as far in the opposite direction). Even when small, I remember hearing stories of the 1950s anti-Communist blacklist, of people being fired or unable to find jobs because of their supposed political beliefs. I include the word "supposed" because many times, if such an allegation was made, it could destroy a person's career and livelihood without ever encountering the inconvenience of having to be proven.

Bizarrely, some of our conspiracy-hobbyist friends, such as Alex Jones, have taken to defending McCarthy and his tactics.

A relative of my family lost a teaching job at a university because of his political beliefs and was escorted out of the state. An old friend of my mom's was one of a rotating group that babysat the Rosenberg kids during the trial. Acknowledging the ongoing controversies surrounding that case without taking a position, the point here is how it struck me as a child. It seemed as though the government was out of control.

Even in grade school, I got in trouble questioning the anti-Communist fervor by asking, whereas foreign Communists might be the enemies of this country, didn't the Constitution grant us freedom of thought? I wasn't even trying to be cute or a renegade but was honestly confused as to how people could be persecuted for ideas independent of actions.

Even if a person's beliefs were repugnant to the state, didn't there have to be traitorous activity as well to make such thoughts criminal?

The next time I encountered the idea of a boycott for ideological reasons is a subject I wrote about in this column a few years back (Feb. 3, 2006): "The first time I was urged to boycott by leftists, it was an action against Welch's mints – a candy bar manufactured by James Welch, brother of Robert Welch, who founded both the candy company and later the John Birch Society. By 1956, Robert had sold all his interests in the company, but lefties were concerned that some of the candy money was being channeled to him and the society. I asked how a boycott based on ideas one disagreed with was different from blacklisting one with whom you disagreed. It's a question I've kept asking."

As obvious as it may seem, this is a quicksand area where people get trapped in the differences between partisan politics and principles. Some of the most passionate advocates on both sides are not just wearing blinders but narrow their eyesight even more by force of will.

"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

Society is often ridiculously judgmental, and the act of judging others comes far too easily to some. Jesus' admonishment to let only he who is without sin cast the first stone is forgotten; instead, the act of stone-throwing itself sanctifies those who fling them.

Over the decades, the fear of ideas different from those that "we" hold (those different from the dominant and accepted ideologies) has far too often led to violence, discrimination, and persecution.

There is no "but" in the First Amendment; it is absolute. The basic constitutional assumption, which far too many of those who swear allegiance to just plain ignore, is that it empowers all of us. Not just some, not just those in agreement with one another, but all of us. As soon as you start whittling at that absolute, everything is lost.