The story I broke last week regarding John Kerry's authorship of a resolution honoring W.E.B. Du Bois has received a good deal of attention. In his Sunday column, Robert Novak included information from my piece in bringing the issue to a broader audience. Ditto for NewsMax, which began its article on the topic: "John Kerry is asking the U.S. Senate to pay homage to the memory of a notorious Communist and rabid anti-American." Numerous blogs and message boards have chimed in too, here, here, and here. Kerry's office has promoted the resolution, but thus far it has but three sponsors and, unlike the corresponding House proposal, has been stalled by opposition. Hopefully, House and Senate boosters of W.E.B. Du Bois will come to their senses and quietly drop their scheme to honor a Stalinist. A resolution honoring a man who renounced his citizenship, occassionally preached racial separatism, and joined the Communist Party is politically stupid and morally evil.

Firstly, let me make clear that I agree with your stance on this. After reading Intellectual Morons, there's no question that DuBois was a bad guy.

However, I've been thinking about this quite a bit recently. (One reason is that I remember browsing a blog of one of the other paleocons on this site, and it had an MLK-day entry essentially defending white separatism). I address the following questions to you, Dan, as well as your readership.

This is a matter of consistency. What actions are heinous enough to cause any honor to be "morally evil"? In the case of DuBois, one example would be his defense of Nazi Germany. I completely agree that this is an atrocious thing for him to have done, and it should exclude him from any true honor. But what about Henry Ford? Do you have the same disdain towards him as you do towards DuBois? Also, what about the unfortunate and evil part of our history regarding slavery? Specifically, I'm thinking of the founding fathers. Should they be honored? Of course they established what was to become the greatest nation in the history of the world, and for that, in addition to their revolutionary ideals, they deserve much credit. But the fact remains that slavery is an evil much greater than renouncing one's citizenship. You may correctly assert that slavery was not an aberration at that point and history. I would respond by saying that sympathy to Communism on the part of so-called progressives in the West was also quite common.

In closing, there is no doubt in my mind that you, Dan, are *not* racist. But the constant and often false labelling of conservatives as "racists" is, in my view, rooted in this issue of inconsistency. As I discussed elsewhere on this site, there are many Buchananites who have two standards for countries in the world -- one for Israel and one for everyone else. I would not be surprised to learn that many of them harbor anti-Semitic views. The same thing is true of blacks and whites. We should condemn any Stalinist, whether it be George Bernard Shaw or W.E.B. DuBois. We should condemn any Nazi-supporter, whether it be Ford or DuBois. We should condemn any slaveowner, whether he is a black African or a white founding father.

-ben

The difference between Henry Ford and W.E.B. Du Bois is that Ford was significant because of what came out of his factories rather than what came out of his mouth. Du Bois's significance is as an intellectual, and because of that we judge him by his writings, lectures, interviews, etc. Like Ford, Einstein had some rather silly political views. But because Einstein is significant as a scientist, and not a political pundit (just like Ford is significant as a manufacturer), we don't allow his occassional foolishness to obscure his scientific achievements.

I appreciate your response. It's a good point.

But now you've reminded me -- what about Zell Miller? Fox News is now paying him to be a pundit, and I'm sure you remember that he delivered a speech during the last Republican convention. Should we respect a man who began his political career under Lester Maddox, a repulsive segregationist?

Ben Litchman,

To answer your question, no, but guess what? The democratic party not only respects, but honors and reveres a man who led one of the most, if not the most, vile racist organization our country has ever produced, Robert KKK. Byrd. If you want to discuss double-standards and cognitive dissonance, quit the FNC bashing and move on to something a bit more relevant.

I wasn't "FNC bashing". I watch Fox News all the time, douche. And I am well aware of Byrd. I just think conservatives are in bad shape if we resort to, "Well, look at what the Democrats do!"

"I just think conservatives are in bad shape if we resort to, 'Well, look at what the Democrats do!'"

Ben,

In one sense, yes, in another sense, no. In general if all you can do is say that the other guy does it too, it is no excuse for your behavior. In one sense conservatives should have a better record on some things.

But in another sense, the Democratic claim is that they are better on this type of thing. And, the media and its pundits largely reinforces the idea that while conservatives are more fussy about their actions, they are, to the largest extent, meaner.

We shouldn't allow those interested factions to get away with an ideologically driven double standard. And in this case it is okay to invoke that the "superior" party "does it too."

I think Dan's point is key, though. What does each person claim is ignorance, and given ignorance, how much of this claim can we accept from an "intellectual".

As far as I know, no other country had ended slavery, thus relatively well-intentioned colonists get a pass from me. Even black slave owners get a pass from me. That doesn't mean that I support slavery, that means that, we can view their opinion as inconsistant by cultural blinders, and we do not have to accept that one moral flaw invalidates their position. And since that person is no more, their particular sins are not so much the issue.

Hitler wooed a lot of progressives across the western world. He was a modern thinker, he was going to modernize Germany. He was also a socialist, willing to embrace most of socialism, though he stipulated that national identity and culture must be preserved, and not washed away in an anonymous, bland "world culture".

If someone is willing to admit that they were ignorant of the darker side of Hitler during the 30s,that's okay. It's the same way that I'm sympathetic to the American communists who didn't know what Stalin was doing.

But you have to plead ignorance. Why didn't people catch on earlier about Hitler and Stalin? Becuase they believed in uprooting the past in order to move civilization "forward".

This is getting a little too long, so I'll just some it up with Dubois is considered an intellectual. Ignorance is not something we seek in intellectuals, but we can forgive, it is is at least acknowledged by them. Persistent, unbalanced ideology on the part of intellectuals, doesn't warrant any type of honor bestowed to them.

But all this is to point, because it's the same thread: Progressivism. Conservatives feel a need to point out the similarity between flaws simply because we are judged with a double standard which places progressives higher than conservatives in the face of regressive errors of people like Byrd or progressive blindness of people like Dubois.