Sunday, November 20, 2016

Bushwhacked by Burr

Sunday, November 20, 2016

When Burr shot Hamilton on the Weehawken bluff above the Hudson River, Hamilton deliberately missed; Burr aimed to kill.
This apparently was something similar when the actor playing Burr in the musical “Hamilton” took aim at Vice President Lance, sparking a huge debate over what is freedom of speech, and what is yelling “fire” in a theater.
Freedom of speech is among the most precious rights Americans have.
So I can't disparage the actor who played Burr in Hamilton from exercising it. Although what he did largely amounted to bushwhacking
This is similar to the stunt Terry Gross from Fresh Air pulled a few decades ago when she lured then Mrs. Reagan onto her show to talk about a book and then hit her with a barrage of questions that eventually had Reason leave the studio
Gross went on to become a hero of the political left for her attack on the former First Lady, and recently was even honored by President Obama, even though what she did was considered a gross abuse in journalistic ethics.
The left loves bushwhacking its opponents.
So Burr, who plays a character not unlike today's Donald Trump, followed the ignoble tradition of lecturing to a captive audience in which included the upcoming vice president.
This idea that the left has the right to lecture people is as offensive to me as the Jesus Freaks I used to meet on Hollywood Boulevard years ago, somehow endowed by moral superiority, by whom and for what purpose remains unclear.
Artists are particularly guilty of stretching their platform so as to believe they had been given a special voice with which to inspire opponents to give up their pre-determined views and take on the views that the artist and the left appears to want.
Leftists, as I said, love to lecture.
I remember having to attend summer school one year to retake math because I had cut the class so regularly during the school year, I could not pass the final. The summer school teachers, who were leftist radicals of that time, wanted to teach us anti-war stuff instead of math, and apparently were willing to pass us if we didn't squirm too much during their lecture.
I learned a lot about the number of bombs that fell on Hanoi that summer, but not much else that added up.
Most of the time, the left preaches to itself, trying to pump its follows up into some kind of non-religious frenzy to somehow justify their point of view.
Even protests are designed for their own and for the media with the vain hope that they can somehow shame the elite into doing what the left wants.
President Trump, like Nixon and LBJ, plays right into their hands by taking insult to their remarks, giving the left an opportunity to capitalize even more on his reaction. Reagan and Bush ignored it and got on with whatever business they had in mind.
The Burr lecture, inappropriate or not, raises serious and legitimate questions about free speech, questions the  politically correct left largely ignored when pushing to ban the flying of the Confederate flag in some public locations.
The left is also largely behind the banning of certain words as offensive or indelicate again raising the question as to just how much they really believe in the concept of Free Speech at all or whether it is more that they support free speech provided they agree with it.
This zealot approach to freedom of speech or thought somehow recalls the most troubling scenes of a Tale of Two Cities where there were acceptable things to the revolution, all else were banned.
This means that politics is no longer about policies, but what people believe in as good and evil.
One Democrat spin doctor tried to claim that the vice president's positions involving gays was evil, because like many religious people, the vice president does not see gay behavior as normal -- and needs treatment, a clearly outdated concept that time and heavy political lobbying by the gay movement has made as unacceptable as any of the naughty words nobody dares speak aloud in public for fear of being called racist, sexist or a bigot – labels the left throws around anyway, tagging anybody who disagrees with their extreme positions.
Many of the Trump appointees represent factions of American society that have been suppressed by a largely liberal agenda since the 1950s, such as the KKK.
Even Democratic presidents like Obama had a similar problem when they took office when the right questioned some of his questionable connections to radical left, characters who espoused ideas that seemed out of character with American mainstream.
Obama, however, did not make the mistake of naming any of these to his cabinet.
Many the Trump appointees were leaders in his campaign, but the left did not rail against them with the same shrill voice on the mistaken belief that Clinton was going to be the next president and so why waste breath.
This also comes against a backdrop in which Democrats are largely supportive of the protests in the streets.
One Supreme Court justice even encouraged the practice, suggesting just how far left the court would go if Clinton had been elected.
Is it appropriate for a sitting justice to express a political view when she is supposed to rule without bias? In some ways, she is like the actor abusing her platform to express views that are better left to other people in other venues.
The justice, of course has the privilege of immunity and cannot be replaced just as the actor and cast has the immunity of an immensely popular Broadway success, a liberal icon nearly as powerful ion his left-leaning message as Hair in my time had been.
Calls to boycott the play are foolish, as well as un-American, since it as much censorship as taking down the confederate flag.
With the exception of the vice president, most of those in the crowd were wealth enough to feel immune as well, wealthy enough to afford the ticket, most likely liberal enough to agree with (as the boos indicate) the actor's position.

This was not the same as screaming fire in a theater, and those who were wealthy enough to afford a ticket and yet conservative enough to find the actor's lecture offensive, merely had to put up with it for a short time, as the actor got his radical credit the way Terry Gross did long ago, just one more bushwhacker striking out from safety and getting applauded for it.

No comments:

Post a Comment