The Council of Conservative Citizens
One of the hallmarks that distinguishes American society
from repressive ones is that when a battle is fought between
political adversaries and won by either side, the losers are
neither exterminated nor driven from the public arena. The
advocates of the less popular view still are free to publish
materials supporting their positions, free to disseminate such
information, and to organize around their ideas.
Something happened, however, on the way to integration. The
belligerent discussions over the very existence of the
Council of Conservative Citizens show how close this country is
to becoming just the opposite of the nation the Founders thought
they had created.
As a black, I am dismayed by what the recent attacks on
members of the CofCC suggest. Apparently, there is but one point
of view permitted to prevail on the subject of integration or the
consequences of current immigration policies. From politicians
and bureaucrats to media pundits, the message is clear. There can
be no questioning of mandated government policy on these issues.
At what point was it ordained that there should be no
expressed difference of opinion on, say, the merits of aggressive
and coercive integration policies that disrupted the cohesion of
communities of both blacks and whites? A black who laments the
loss of control held by his race in all-black towns and
communities is excoriated as a traitor to the “higher”
cause of assimilation. And a white who bemoans the passing of his
neighborhood’s distinct cultural features, because of the
influx of outsiders, is considered beneath contempt. Both are
labeled “separatists” and scorned as enemies of society
or, at least, possessors of dangerous tendencies that bear
watching.
The Council is accused of harboring such separatist
tendencies, for which it is expected to apologize. Integration is
no longer just another choice of public policy, that can be
embraced or challenged--like other public policies. Instead, it
has developed quasi-religious dimensions, and its critics are
condemned to hell fire.
Spokesmen of the Council have made clear the group’s
commitment to preserving the benefits of Western culture, whose
superior characteristics make possible the highest quality of
life for the greater number of people. The group is not alone in
its opposition to non-Western influences that threaten to
dissipate the constitutional liberties we take for granted.
I have followed the views of representatives of the Council of
Conservative Citizens for the past couple of years, and I find
their perspective to be sane and often admirable. Sane, because
they are correct in their assessment of the blessings of Western
culture, and admirable because, in the midst of a hostile
political environment that pressures for ideological conformity,
they are willing to express their contrary beliefs.
To judge from the mounting commentaries and letters to
editors, many foes of the CofCC are angered by the group’s
negative stance on Martin Luther King, Jr. Is reverence for any
public figure now an imperative? Is the reputation of King
off-limits to scrutiny and disparagement any more than that of
Thomas Jefferson? Last year’s trashing of the quintessential
Founding Father’s private life and the ongoing clobbering of
our current President should make it clear that America will give
no quarter to sacred cows. The admirers/worshippers of King, who
feel hurt by criticism of their icon, had better get over it and
recognize the nature of an open society.
Several prominent figures have been condemned and even
demonized for association with or membership in the CofCC. To
publicly vilify those who belong to a legal organization
comprised of people who work to persuade others only through the
dissemination of ideas has a chilling effect on all dissident
activity. Who, one wonders, will be attacked next?
That’s only one of several important questions aroused by
this latest clamor against the Council. Are we going to strive to
keep an open society, where multiple views on diverse issues
(even the hot button ones) can find a forum for expression? Or
are we going to further cut off options for free expression and
risk social strife by driving underground those who have a right
to First Amendment freedoms?
If we Americans have learned nothing else at the close of this
century, let’s hope we have learned to hold sacred the
protections afforded each of us in the singularly unique precepts
of the Constitution.
1999
Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views
|
