Principle andPrejudice

“The real American day hasn’t begun yet. Or at least, not yet sunrise. So far it has been the false dawn. That is, in the progressive American consciousness, there has been the one dominant desire, to do away with the old thing. Do away with masters, exalt the will of the people. The will of the people being nothing but a figment, the exalting doesn’t count for much. So, in the name of the people, get rid of masters. When you have got rid of masters, you are left with this mere phrase of the will of the people. Then you pause and bethink yourself, and try to recover your wholeness.” From “The Spirit of Place” by D. H. Lawrence (1923).
How true Lawrence speaks to the state of America in the first decade of the 21st Century even though he wrote his “Studies in Classic American Literature” in the second decade of the 20th Century. We are still throwing off old masters, even those whom we have elected only recently. The more our current leader looks like a master, the more some of us want to overthrow him.
What sticks in the craw of the fearful whites who hold “tea parties” and protests is that the current master, duly elected by the majority, has exercised power, and that power, no matter how it is derived or on what knowledge it is based, is black. Furthermore, no matter what the topic (health care, economy, Wall Street regulation, or missile defense) the issue is the power held by a master who is black, and that very fact subconsciously or overtly, threatens any white who fears the coming extinction of white privilege disguised as “the will of the people” – my people. They see a black man in power and fear either deep-seated ancestral-guilt-based reprisal is in store or at the very least the “traditional” racial hierarchy has been deeply eroded. For some extremists, the “natural” racial hierarchy has been irrevocably compromised.
What may start out as principle-based disagreement devolves into personal attack. When race or religion is available as a distinction, it becomes the currency for personal attack, particularly when the principle perceived to be under attack evokes indefensible privilege, indefensible selfishness, or irrationality under close scrutiny. It becomes more convenient and emotionally satisfying to demonize race or religion, thereby declaring the person in question a lesser being, a lower order. Seeing him as an equal leaves his principles and argument on the same field of play, thus giving it equal value in principle. Therefore, the best way to avoid facing the opponent’s arguments head on, point to point, is to render them inferior categorically by labeling the person whose views you disagree with a socialist, a fascist, a communist, or racially inferior.
The astounding fact is that the proponents of private enterprise and free markets would rather demonize a black president than look at the inherent contradiction in their support of both corporations and free markets, when it is the mission of corporations to assure themselves a lion’s share of any market they enter. They don’t want competition; they want monopoly or as close to it as they can get. These ‘tea partiers” would rather continue suffering at the hands of private monopolies or domestic cartels than trust their elected government to provide a mechanism for keeping corporations honest. Big Government is bad; Big Business is good. Keep it simple. Keep it about good guys and bad guys. Keep it like…well, like football: Broncos good; Raiders bad.
D. H. Lawrence was right then (1923) and right now (2009). Populist demagogues hiding behind their perception of “the will of THEIR people” would rather bring down a master who is trying to make things better for the greater good than allow him to succeed. His success would prove them wrong, and then they would have to face the error of their beliefs, both principled and personal, and that would be worse than muddling along with the unsustainable status quo.