Communist cheerleaders are attacking America. Dennis Prager strikes back.
Those leftists have really gone and done it this time: They’re asking cheerleaders to cheer.
Naturally, there’s a little more to the story. What sticks in Prager’s craw isn’t the fact that cheerleaders (many of whom, it should be noted, get some sort of school credit for cheer, and get to list it as a sport and a leadership position on college applications) are being told that they should actually cheer, but that they’re being told that they also have to cheer for girls. The cheerleaders, who are girls themselves, don’t feel that they should have to cheer for girls’ teams. Only the boys teams should have their support.
Now, the arguable stupidity of cheerleading aside,* there isn’t really a rational argument for why the cheerleaders should cheer at boys’ games but not girls’ games. Cheer squads are funded by the school (i.e., by taxpayer dollars). The coach is paid by the school. They are subject to federal regulations, including Title IX, which requires that girls’ sports receive the same benefits as boys’ teams (notably, Title IX has never actually been enforced by the government, but that doesn’t stop conservatives from crying about it). Plus, when you’re chosen by your school to serve on a team whose sole purpose is to cheer on other sports teams, you probably shouldn’t be surprised when you’re asked to cheer on sports teams. Yes, even when the athletes have hoo-has instead wee-wees.
Dennis Prager sees regulations like Title IX as affronts to freedom. Because if people want to discriminate with our collective tax dollars, who are we to stop them?
The conservative idea of “freedom to make other people less free” is truly astounding. They want the freedom to vote on whether or not gays and lesbians deserve the same human rights as straight people. They want the freedom to decide whether women should have a right to our own bodies, or if that right should be superseded by a concept of fetal rights which not only privileges fetuses above women, but gives fetuses rights that no class of born people even have. They say that they’re bringing freedom to Iraq by destroying the country’s infrastructure, backing an Iraqi Constitution that gives women fewer rights than they had under Saddam Hussein, and killing tens of thousands of people. It’s pretty incredible.
Prager’s argument, then, is that these leftist cheerleading fascists are simply reflective of leftism in general, which is almost entirely responsible for all the totalitarianism in the 20th century. Seriously:
That is why, with the exception of Nazism — which was an acronym for National Socialism but, rightly or wrongly, because it was race- and nationalism-based and because it allowed private enterprise, Nazism has been generally considered a far-right, not far-left, doctrine — nearly all totalitarianism of the 20th century was on the Left.
…right. Now, it’s cute to make an exception for Nazism, but I’d say that was a pretty significant totalitarian regime, especially considering that they systematically slaughtered millions of people and started a world war. But yeah, Prager has a point, Cuba totally sucks.
Now, Dennis also conveniently ignores the right-wing totalitarianism, repression, and dictatorships in Italy, Spain, Japan, and Chile, among others. Not to mention Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Angola, Guatemala, the Phillipines, Argentina and significant portions of Latin America and Africa (at least some of which was bankrolled by the freedom-loving USA). While keeping the conversation centered on the 20th century conveniently allows Prager to concentrate on those ever-hated Communists (and you won’t find me defending communism), it conveniently skips over the right-wing tyranny inflicted on people for centuries. Like, say, slavery. It wasn’t liberals who wanted to uphold that fine institution, and the United States was essentially a racial dictatorship for a pretty long time. Colonialism and imperialism further established racial dictatorships around the world, and sowed the seeds of instability and destruction, the results of which we continue to see today. Indeed, in our effort to stop the spread of the ever-hated Red Menace (and to put the U.S. in an even greater position of power and hegemony), we thoughtfully swept right-wing dictators and autocratic governments into power. But, right, they weren’t totalitarian, so it’s ok. Hell, let’s bring ’em back! (Yes, that is Jonah Goldberg arguing that we need to install an Iraqi Pinochet. Yes, he is serious. No, you should not read it. Yes, you will want to claw your own eyes out).
Back to Prager:
By definition, the moment one crosses from center to left, one accepts more government control of people’s lives. Therefore, the further left society moves, the more there is government control over its citizens’ lives. It is astonishing that this obvious fact is not universally acknowledged and that the Left has somehow successfully portrayed itself as preoccupied with personal liberty with regard to anything except sexual behavior and abortion.
This is an interesting contention, particularly given that, at this moment in history, the Bush administration has created the largest government ever in this country, and has extended its reach and control into citizens’ lives to unprecedented degrees (Wiretapping? Indefinite detainments? Reading your emails?).
But, yeah, fuck Jimmy Carter, man.
As liberalism has moved left in the past 50 years, there has been a veritable explosion of legislation.
In the past 50 years, if I’m counting correctly, there have been six Republican presidents and four Democratic presidents. Control of Congress has also been split relatively evenly. The big onslaught of left-wing law-making obviously occurred with the New Deal, but that was more than 50 years ago. So I’m not sure that liberals can be blamed for this.
But then, Dennis isn’t exactly known for being the sharpest knife in the drawer. For example, in explaining why the lefties have so many laws, he writes:
“Progressives” are often unsuccessful in competing in the marketplace of ideas. Same-sex marriage and affirmative action are two contemporary examples. And when persuasion fails, laws are used. If you can’t convince, coerce.
This is sort of true, except I haven’t seen too many laws on the books in favor of same-sex marriage. I have seen established laws — you know, those that won out in the “marketplace of ideas” — interpreted in ways that right-wingers don’t like, because they give people more rights.
I’m tempted to call Dennis Prager unpatriotic here, for his obvious distaste for our country’s highest document (that would be the Constitution, not the Bible). Our Constitution is structured specifically to enshrine democracy into law and simultaneously protect against tyranny of the majority. Which is, you know, pretty liberal.
The law is by nature coercive. I see no shame in the fact that we legally coerced this country out of segregation, out of sex discrimination, out of anti-miscegenation laws. As for Prager’s apparent argument that we should just wait until progressive ideas are more palatable to a majority which is always reluctant to give up any of its power — oh, excuse me, until they win in the marketplace of ideas — well,
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant ‘Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”
Prager is right. Progressives refuse to wait.
Prager also writes:
The more secular the society, the more laws are needed to keep people in check. When more people feel accountable to God and moral religion, fewer laws need to be passed. But as religion fades, something must step into the moral vacuum it leaves, and laws compelling good behavior result.
Because religion makes people behave so incredibly well.
I know Prager has heard of the Islamic Republic of Iran and other theocracies and ultra-religious nations, but perhaps it’s better to ignore their existence, since they do rely on a multitude of freedom-limiting laws. And before you say “it’s because of the Islamo-Fascism!,” I’ll point out that last I checked, Israel also has a few laws.
Unlike the nearly contemporaneous French Revolution, which affirmed “egalite” along with “liberte,” the American Revolution never held equality equal to liberty. The Founders knew that you cannot have both, and so, the further left one moves, i.e., the more like France and Western Europe we become, the more coerced equality and the less personal liberty we will have.
At least he admits he’s not interested in equality.
But his contention that “you can’t have both” is entirely ridiculous. Without equality, people are not fully free, and our own country’s history is a testament to that. The fact that he cites the American Revolution as an example is telling. After all, immediately following the Revolution, Americans were “free” — except for the ones who were enslaved. And the ones who had no legal rights. And the ones whose legal rights were extremely limited.
White, Christian land-owning men were free. But that isn’t really “freedom.” Conservatives like Prager are wedded to the idea that freedom for some is good enough (ostensibly so long as he’s in the “free” category). Progressives don’t call it freedom until all people are actually free.
Conservatives with Prager’s mentality — which is certainly not shared by all conservatives — have been standing in the way of social justice for centuries. Luckily, progressive values have been winning out and, despite backlash and backsliding, will continue to triumph. And as much as it pains me, Prager and his ilk, despite their hostility to progress, will benefit from it just like the rest of us.
But liberals believe in cheering for girls’ teams. Girls. Girls with cooties. Nyah nyah.
*Two side notes:
1. A lot of cheerleaders work very hard and are incredible athletes, gymnasts and dancers. A lot of girls who would rather do gymnastics end up on cheer squads, because many public schools don’t have the money to pay for gymnastics programs and cheerleading. Lots of cheer squads place more emphasis on their routines and competitions than they do on cheering for other sports teams. So I’m not arguing that cheer isn’t a sport or that cheerleaders don’t do anything important. I just think that the idea of a group of girls whose primary purpose is to cheer for male athletes is stupid.
2. I think the idea is so stupid that I tried out for cheer in high school. I was rejected. Don’t tell anyone.