Narcissism of the Left

[eisely 13]

This has nothing to do with scouting, but I just had to post this piece from the Friday, August 29 Wall Street Journal.

_____________________________________

 

His Mother's Son

For Chesa Boudin murder is still "activism."

 

Friday, August 29, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

 

As far as we know, Chesa Boudin (Yale '03) has never met Edward O'Grady III (Annapolis '97). Let's just say that they have a connection through their folks. Mr. Boudin's mother, Kathy Boudin, has been doing time for her role in the 1981 Brinks robbery in Nanuet, N.Y., that killed Lt. O'Grady's policeman-father, along with another Nyack cop and a Brink's security guard.

 

Normally a new college grad who was 14 months old when his mother was locked up merits some latitude. But young Mr. Boudin is not exactly shunning the limelight. A Rhodes Scholar frequently described as a "second generation activist" (as if murder and armed robbery constituted activism rather than criminality), Mr. Boudin has been profiled in People and is back in the news now that his mother has been granted parole.

 

In these media moments, Mr. Boudin freely dispenses instruction about what's best for the families of the three fine men murdered in the Brinks job: Sgt. Edward O'Grady, Officer Waverly Brown and security officer Peter Paige. With CNN's Paula Zahn, he said he and his mother hope that her release "can move this healing process, the reconciliation process, forward because that's ultimately the best thing for everybody."

 

That was no stray comment. "Bitterness and anger can really consume us," he told the suburban New York paper the Journal News. "Reconciliation and forgiveness can actually help all of us move on in a healthier, happier way." But he saved the best for the New York Times, where he likened his plight to that of the nine children left fatherless in the Brinks robbery-murders. "I also was a victim of that crime. I know how important it was for me to forgive." Mr. Boudin has said he remains committed to the ideals (minus the violence) that motivated his parents. But his remarks unwittingly reveal the hallmark of that ethos: narcissism dressed up as compassion.

Surely he comes by it honestly. With his biological parents in prison, Mr. Boudin was raised by one of their fellow Weathercouples: Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Mr. Ayers, you might recall, had the ill fortune of having his flip crack about his fugitive past--"I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough"--carried in the New York Times the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

 

For her part, Kathy Boudin explains that it was her guilt over her privileged life and her affinity for black America that led her to that robbery. How ironic, then, that Waverly Brown, one of the two slain officers, was the first African-American on the Nyack police force. And Ms. Boudin's embarrassment about being to the manor born didn't stop her from letting her wealthy lawyer-father help arrange a clever plea bargain that today enables her to realize her freedom while others remain in prison.

 

Her son, meanwhile, urges those who are forever denied the kind of reunion that he will soon enjoy with his mother to "move on." But he's the one hitting the lecture circuit as an expert on parental separation. Meanwhile, the late Sgt. O'Grady's son serves his nation as a naval officer; Officer Brown's son is a captain in law enforcement and his two daughters served in the Air Force; and the other O'Gradys, Browns and Paiges live as productive members of society who decline to parade their causes or charitable works in public. In all worlds but the one Mr. Boudin apparently inhabits, simple decency would mean--especially in the wake of his mother's parole victory--leaving these people in peace.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

So, the self-absorbed comments of one college student translates into "Narcissism of the Left?" The entire "Left"? And who is this "Left," anyway? It's tough keeping track these days.

[Fat Old Guy 11]

The "left" is anyone who doesn't agree with me. :-)

 

I find it interesting that in the 60's conservatives trusted the government and liberals didn't. Now the conservatives don't trust the government and the liberals do.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Continuing on the theme, in the 1960's The Roman Catholic Church was solidly in the Democratic Party, leastways in my area it was, and it wasnt all JFK either. Better conditions for the working man, care for those in "need", all traits both Demos and Catholics embraced.

 

Now, it appears the Democrats want nothing of any organized religion, or anything organized (insert Will Rogers Quote here)

 

Not sure how the Democrats improve the lot of the woking man any more, they still want to take care of those in need, its just that they have so durn well expanded the definition of who is in "need"

 

Anyway, like I have said before, Clowns to the Left of me, Jokers to the Right, here I am stuck in the middle with you. AND I am not so sure about YOU

[Twocubdad 665]

Gee, FOG, that's how I define conservative.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I've also noticed, over the years, that the close relatives of persons who have committed serious crimes often have a different perspective than the rest of society on the actions of their mother, father, child or whoever. Mom may be a murderer, but she's still mom. (In this case technically a felony-murderer, she didn't pull the trigger nor did the government prove she knew her fellow robbers intended to shoot anyone, but she was still convicted of murder because she knowingly participated in the robbery in which the officers and guard were killed. I remember all this very vividly, I was a newspaper reporter at the time and the Nyack newspaper was owned by the same company.)

 

But anyway: While the murderer's relatives may have their own perspective, usually they have the good grace to keep it within their own circle of family, friends and lawyers. This one didn't. I don't think it has any great significance for our political/social/ideological structure.

 

I can't help feeling a bit of sympathy for him, he didn't kill anyone, and his mother was in prison for all his conscious childhood. That can't have been easy, but it doesn't change what his mother did and it does not give any weight to his opinions.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

OGE, sometime I could expound on the theory of "political realignment" that I learned about in college, which is really what you are talking about. There have been several elections (or series of elections) in our history that are considered by political scientists to be "realignments." One was 1932 in which FDR put together what came to be known as the Roosevelt Coalition -- which included Roman Catholics (resulting in part from the fact that the Democrats had nominated the first Roman Catholic for president, Al Smith, 4 years earlier.) Also included were many blacks, who previously had been overwhelmingly Republican, the party of Lincoln. When the next realignment took place, or if the whole theory has become outdated and we are now in just a big muddle with different groups going different ways in different elections, is not clear. Some believe 1980 and 84 were realigning elections with many Roman Catholics being included among the "Reagan Democrats" that swung things to the Republicans for awhile. This did not work for Bush I the second time out, or for Dole, and the fact that the last election was for all intents and purposes a tie, and that "group identity" has faded a bit as a factor in politics (not necessarily a bad thing) makes this whole subject a big puzzle as it applies to future elections. That is one reason why the California recall is such a big deal in the nationwide media, because now ANY significant factor (such as who is running the state that has close to 10 percent of the electoral votes) becomes very big in deciding presidential elections.

 

Gee, I guess I just expounded. Is it a surprise that I was a political science major?

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Back in 1984 I think it was I voted for Andersen, Reagan was a shoo in in the state I was living in, and if Andersen got some percentage of the popular vote he qualified for matching federal dollars. Looks like this upcomming election will be another time to look for alternates, Bush II is looking more and more unpresidential.

[Twocubdad 665]

NJ -- you've really got to get back to me on trying to match the other half of this amulet I have. Poli Sci major -- check. Early career as a reporter -- check. I'm waiting for Rod Serling to walk in.

 

There's a great book on the subject, "Cycles of American History" by Authur Schlesinger (he would be a left-wing Eastern revisionist historian to the rest of you). One of the points of the book is that presidential elections are somewhat independent of the major cycles of politics. Presidential elections are swayed by the micro-politics of a given elections just as much as they are the macro-political trends. Whether or not a president is conservative or liberal is relative to the period during which they serve.

 

Nixon is the perfect example. His election had more to do with the meltdown of the Democrats in '68 than a return to conservative values of the "silent majority" as he would have preferred to explain it. As a result, Nixon's administration turned out to be one of the most liberal in history -- price controls, creation of the EPA, his nominations to the Supreme Court, opening China, etc.

 

Clinton is another example (and I'm sure this will draw howls from the right side of the aisle). Following the cyclical shift to the right during the Reagan years, Bush 41 should have been a shoo-in for a second term except that 1) he ran a really lousy campaign, 2) Clinton (and James Carville) ran a terrific campaign, and 3) Perot sucked a net of two percentage points from Bush. But as a relatively liberal president in a conservative era, Clinton ended up having a comparatively conservative administration -- welfare reform, balancing the budget, etc. Had Clinton been able to keep his pants on and had the Republicans focused on something other than getting Clinton, there would have been even more conservative policies adopted.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

TwoCubDad, you are absolutely right about Clinton, the whole time he was president I kept hearing from the "right" about how "liberal" he was and wondered where all the liberalism in his policies was hiding. In addition to what you mentioned, don't forget the whole NAFTA/GATT/free trade thing. That was a conservative, business-oriented policy that Clinton not only supported, but twisted arms in Congress in order to get a majority vote. Al Gore went on TV to debate Ross Perot (gosh that seems like another century; oops, I guess it was.) In contrast, when he was trying to advocate a "liberal" position and there was the slightest amount of resistence, he backed off in a quick hurry, examples being his health care program and (I hesitate to mention it) gays in the military. (On the latter he ended up with "don't ask don't tell" which didn't change the policy against gays in the military, it just made it slightly more difficult to enforce it.) Other examples were some of his appointments. Some were undeniably liberal. Others, well, if you remember his first try at an attorney general he appointed Zoe Baird who caused howls of protest from "liberals" because she had been a corporate lawyer her entire career and had no "liberal" credentials at all. She went away due to a "babysitting" problem (failure to pay Social Security, as has sunk several appointments of both parties since then) and we ended up with that darling of the right, Janet Reno. (As my boss likes to say, irony can be so ironic.) Then there was Steven Breyer on the Supreme Court, really not a liberal by any means and he has not turned out to be consistently liberal (or conservative) on the court -- at times he has given the "right" the fifth vote for a majority because some of the others have a way of straying from the fold on one issue or another.

 

It is really all a matter of perspective.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Isnt Breyer an Eagle scout?

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I did not know that OGE, but according to this:

 

http://www.usscouts.org/usscouts/eagle/eaglejudges.html

 

yes he is. It also lists Rehnquist, Scalia and Kennedy as having been Scouts but not Eagle Scouts. Sort of interesting then that these latter three were among the five-member majority that upheld the BSA's policy in the Dale case while Breyer, the Eagle Scout, was one of the four dissenters.

[packsaddle 753]

Nice observations, Twocubdad and NJCubScouter. I like to remind people that much of what Clinton accomplished was set as goals originally by Reagan and later left uncompleted by the Republican establishment. His accomplishments were much more conservative, actually, than the profligate spending and programs that Bush is promoting today.

On names.

One of the first lessons I try to teach my students is that applying a term or a name does not automatically annoint a person with knowledge or understanding. I find that few persons fit well into popular stereotypes. It is sometimes better to focus on the ideas and ignore the typographical conveniences.

[dsteele 20]

This posts pains me, almost physically. I'm a pretty staunch Republican politically -- my mother says I lean to the right, even when I walk.

 

What I think is important and what truly makes our country great is that we manage to draw strength out of our disagreements and unify when we need unity.

 

There no partisan differences on September 11, 2001. At least on that day, all put aside the petty differences. Democrat and Republican Congressmen and women did not care who they were standing next to when they sang "God Bless America."

 

DS