Imus Double Standard
by Donald Devine

Whatever happened to “everyone is entitled to their opinion,” the universal defense when the cultural cognoscenti insult traditional values? Is it “anything goes” except when it comes to Don Imus?

Just why was Imus fired? Was it for saying “hos”? That word was almost required in rap to reach stardom and was ubiquitous across the radio spectrum. So it was not the words. Was it because it was directed at a minority, “nappy headed”? But all rap music insults the same minority females, if not those with a popular basketball team. Was it because his words were said in a derogatory way? But that is the whole point of this misogynous “music.” Why was Imus different?

It is fun to watch the liberals explain. A feature article in Time magazine takes 2,700 words trying to decide, as the title asked, “Who Can Say What”? In one sense, it argued, everyone does it—citing Michael Richards’ “nigger”, Isaiah Washington’s “faggot”, Sen. George Allen’s “macaca” and Mel Gibson’s “f…ing Jew.” These offenders all suffered damage as Imus did. But “Borat” called Alan Keyes “a genuine chocolate face,” The Sarah Silverman Program parodied “God’s black friend” and “South Park” even used the “niggers” word. Yet, Time says these latter terms were used “legitimately” as “brilliant commentary, even art.” How explain this when the words were pretty much the same?

Time says Imus “crossed a line” but admits Dick Gregory and Lenny Bruce are allowed to cross the same line because they are “socially conscious.” The motion picture academy elite can give an Oscar to hos in the “Hard Out Here for a Pimp” song and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy can say “faggot” because these are “good-natured” usages. It is all pretty confusing for the non-artist except that socially conscious and good-natured seem to translate as “liberal.” At the end, Time finally concludes: “making jokes about difference — race, gender, sexual orientation, the whole list — is ultimately about power. You need to purchase the right to do it through some form of vulnerability, especially if you happen to be a rich, famous white man.” The price is higher for being rich, famous or white because they have power.

Not really, since it is not the rich and famous part that is important to these moderators of taste. Although it escapes Time’s notice, it is obvious that the rappers are rich and famous but still get a bye. Purchasing vulnerability apparently is only necessary for whites since that is where the real power rests. In a democracy, the majority rules and whites are the majority. One must be on a minority “list” to purchase vulnerability so one can use offensive speech (and obtain the rewards of fame and money it brings). But who is more powerful, the ones with the immunity or the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant rich? When newly-elected Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from one of Rhode Island’s oldest and prestigious families walked into his first Judiciary Committee majority caucus meeting in January 2007, he was greeted by Sen. Charles Schumer (NY). “Hey, Sheldon, normally you’ve got to be a Jew or a Catholic to get on this committee. You’re the first WASP.” No joke; this really happened.

Like being white, being Christian is often expected to meet the higher standards of power as a consequence of being a majority. Yes, 80 percent of Americans call themselves Christian and 70 percent claim adherence to a particular church. But here is where this majority-bear-the-burden stuff breaks down. The largest single church is only 25 percent of the population and there are hundreds of different denominations, none of which are close to a majority. There is no majority to fear, and certainly the media elite do not. A recent Parent’s Television Council study found that television references to religious institutions or doctrine were 18 percent positive, 22 percent mixed and 47 negative, in spite of the fact a majority of the audience in a Zogby poll wanted positive TV references to God, religion and the Bible.

The fact is there is no majority in the United States other than women who, for some reason, are considered a minority. What is white? Hispanics are routinely classified as not white but why not Poles, Hungarians, Irish, Scandinavian, German or even English since none come close to a majority? There is not even a momentary majority of the population in an election since half of the people do not vote. The Founders even created a Constitution to separate powers so that it would be even less likely if not impossible to create a ruling majority. There can be a majority in a legislative body but the Founders balanced that elite with elites in a second house of Congress, a president, a Supreme Court and 50 states. The myth of majority power in the face of no real, existing concrete majority in fact is important, however, to justify the related myth of minorities that need special protection from this majority. But the reality of this myth is that it produces favored verses unfavored minorities, favored or not by those who have the real power.

That is where Imus comes in. The cultural elite have the power in the media and they did not like his “cowboy-hatted swagger,” as Time described it. The media elite simply like some minorities and not others depending on whether they support the elite’s universal myth of the egalitarian majority. Western, Midwestern, Southern and other regional or ethnic or religious identification is “provincial” if not racist in this mythology. As the negative images on TV prove, this elite does not like religion or parochial values so they denigrate them publicly. The formative political myth of the left cultural elite was their—they think it was they alone--rescue of African-Americans during the civil rights struggle of the last half century. Those groups viewed on the correct side of that struggle for equality are allowed to get away with what would doom the others. In other words, who gets immunity from rebuke is an ideological decision that is partially based on race but mainly upon whether one agrees with the cultural elite or not.

The right, in theory at least, believes in minorities, or factions as the Founders called them, as the essential social facts of life. James Madison said the protection of freedom’s diversity was the first object of government. Philosopher Russell Kirk set as one of only six major tenants of conservatism "affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of traditional life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems." The job of government is to keep social peace between the groups without extinguishing their freedom. To do so, officials need to be neutral between them, treating all equally before the law. The left’s myth of equality requires granting special “vulnerabilities” for favored minorities to force the social equality that the natural diversity of mankind under freedom could never deliver.

Imus’ comments were stupid and offensive and whether he is on radio or not is not very important. But it is important to understand the thinking of the cultural elite. They sail under the banner of diversity and freedom of expression but when the egalitarian taboos are broken by the unfavored they will forget the all-ideas-are-equal shibboleth and act fiercely to silence the deviationism. Even Silverman is uneasy about this double standard--“I can say nigger because I’m liberal”--but she knows she can say it and even get Time’s approval for saying it. Cowboys and other non-politically correct groups cannot. That is what liberals call free speech.

Donald Devine, the editor of Conservative Battleline Online, was the director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management from 1981 to 1985 and is the director of the Federalist Leadership Center at Bellevue University.