Anti-racism Is the Broadest Moral Consensus of Our Time

Do you ever find yourself thinking we live in a time when the concept of morality itself is fading? That "tolerance" has been elevated to such a high level, that nothing can be condemned? That the highest crime you can commit is "judging" someone.

No, we don't live in such a time. We have moral codes that are widely held in the culture that are just as strong as there have ever been. In fact, they are so strong that it arouses suspicion if one fails to "judge" them with enough swift brutality. But they are not Victorian codes, which elevate Society over individual. And they are not Judeo-Christian norms, which make deep claims about the duties of man to direct his life in a certain way.

The morals of today, the ones which have been ushered in by elites into the high culture and the pop culture, are about identity -- an absolute zero tolerance for any type of bigotry or prejudice. Consider this letter column from the most recent issue of The Atlantic (March 2009):

To Columnist Jeffrey Goldberg:

I have just realized fully, after seven years, that I am married to a racist. He’s used the “N word” a number of times over the years, and we always fought about it. But he has always claimed to be directing the slur toward somebody “acting” like one, and not toward people of color generally. Well, I recently learned how he truly feels. He voted for McCain and I voted for Obama. He said, “Looks like we have an ‘N’ for president.” I was saddened and disgusted by his remark. I don’t believe I can live with anyone who thinks like this, and I’m planning to get a divorce. This is not the only reason, but it’s certainly the icing on the cake. Do you think we can change racists’ minds?
Name withheld, Virginia Beach, Va.

Dear Mildred (may I call you Mildred?),

I don’t mean to sound harsh, but wasn’t the first, or second, deployment of the N word enough to convince you that something was desperately wrong with your husband’s moral wiring? I know: it’s often very hard to see what’s right before your eyes, so I congratulate you for realizing, even belatedly, the depth of your problem, and I wish you luck on your extraction. To answer your deeper question with a question: Why try to change their minds at all? Racism isn’t a burden for us; it’s a burden for racists. In any case, trying to bring a racist to civilization is like trying to teach a dog to sing Verdi.

Bye-bye marriage. Hope there are no children to think of. Yep, he said the N-word. There's no hope for him. He should have robbed a bank, cheated on his taxes, committed adultery, or done any number of things that would have been redeemable. But he committed the unpardonable sin. And be honest -- you're not that surprised at Goldberg's response, are you? You saw it coming.

Now, I applaud the condemnation of bigotry and prejudice. But I think we've thrown out the moral hook to hang the coat on. I'm always up for a good condemnation -- whether it be for bigotry, for appeasing terrorists, for a man not supporting the children he sires, for drunk driving, for any number of things. But I'm supposed to be one of those terrible ones who "judges."

We still judge in this culture. We just reserve our swiftest judgments for anyone who seems not to understand the new rules of identity politics. If I expressed my position that men and women should be ladies and gentlemen around each other, not given to sexually vulgar talk and behavior, I'd be cast as a judgmental hick. But what about sexual harassment? That's different. It's wrong because there's an aggrieved identity involved. Okay, fine for you -- but you judge, don't you?

Making a strong moral judgment, even moral condemnation, is something we do all the time in this culture. Only the standards by which we judge and condemn have changed.