The man stands alone.
By trevino Posted in User Blogs — Comments (34) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Defending Ben Domenech is a losing proposition these days, especially as one of the many charges brought against him turned out to be objectively true. But he is a friend, and remains so, and so I find it increasingly difficult to ignore the relentless venom against him and his. Today we find that, continuing the pattern of invective established by slurs on his father and mother, some have decided to deride his girlfriend (who is no Mrs Trevino, but otherwise we'd all be lucky to have one like her) -- and we see that the campaign against him as a declared racist splutters on.
The invocation of racism is a sort of atom bomb of leftist discourse: it shuts down any debate that previously existed, and exiles the accused into a limbo of the discredited. This, of course, is why it is done so readily. Now, let's state up front that this is often well deserved -- and let's acknowledge that it just as often is not. In Domenech's case, I can attest firsthand that it is not.
A little background is in order. As some know, I conceived of what became RedState in March 2003. Within that week, I asked Ben Domenech, whom I knew from our days as speechwriters for HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson, to join me in the endeavor. He readily agreed. (Within the month, Ben brought on Mike Krempasky, and the founding triumvirate of RS was in place.) As part of the process of formulating RS, we agreed on several core maxims, one of which was that we would not tolerate racism or racist fellow-travelers. This can be a real problem at points, especially when delving into the odd corners of conservatism where nostalgia for the Confederacy is sincere and strong -- or when talking about issues like immigration and meritocracy which lend themselves to coded language and ill intent. There's no point in tolerating that, and I'm proud to note that in my entire time at RS, we did not.
Now, let me make one thing clear: I asked Ben to join me in large part because he has a strong record of facing down conservative racists. Long before RS was conceived, he was already waging rhetorical battle with a group of race-obsessed conservatives he dubbed the "evilcons." Three posts from his old site stand out in particular.
First, the one in which he coined the moniker:
Some people have asked me over the past few months to link to some paleocon sites -- here's an example of a reason why I don't. This post stands for every tendency from the paleocon horde that I find totally distasteful: the vestiges of vile racial politics that uses skin color to define society. "Skin tone matters!" they insist, over and over again....At this point, I think I'm going to adopt a new rule - conservatives adopting this kind of racist dogma are hereinafter labeled "EvilCons."
Second, the one in which he expanded upon his views on race and conservatism. It's long, but it's worth your time to read it all:
....Endorsements of racial supremacy should be met with unequivocal condemnation, regardless whether their source wraps himself in the flag. If this be liberalism, make the most of it....
The devil is in the definitions....[Lawrence] Auster has his own definition for Western Civ, however: "European America." He uses this label interchangeably with two others: "Anglo-America" and "White Americans."
[There's some irony here, of course. The two largest populations of immigrants currently coming into America, through both legal and illegal routes, speak one of two languages: Spanish and Portuguese. Both languages are European in origin. Both are part of Western linguistics. And both are much older than our version of English. Yet Auster is clearly more focused on the skin color of the people speaking those languages.]
Auster's beef is with the pro-minority immigration policies that welcome the change in demographics and the declining population numbers of the white majority. He believes that America was founded in white culture, and needs to remain a majority-white nation in order to survive.
[Pause to choke back vomit]
One of the reasons that America's population is now a more than 30% minority is immigration -- but another is that many immigrants have stronger family bonds than most Caucasians. Latinos in particular overwhelmingly get married younger, stay married longer, and have lots more kids along the way (most of us are Catholic - what do you expect?). As a social conservative, I fail to see how these strong families "threaten" white Americans.
I am pro-immigration, because I want as many people as possible to become Americans. I want them to buy into the values that entails. I want them to enjoy the blessings of liberty that all of us do today.
Despite what Auster believes, America is not an exclusive club, and putting up a political sign that says "(Insert race) not welcome here," whether that race is Irish or Arab or Mexican, is absolutely antithetical to the idea that all men are created equal. So is the idea that individuals have lesser "civilizational abilities" because of their ethnic background. Defining individuals by their race alone is vile, regardless of whether it's in the form of quotas or discrimination or paleocon bigotry.
America is not founded on any race, or any religion, or any variant of "ethnic culture." It is founded on ideas. And those ideas apply to all races, and can be fulfilled in all races. What sets this nation apart in the catalogue of history is our conviction that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not merely American rights, confined to our shores or the boundaries of any race, but the gifts of a benevolent Creator to all humanity....
(As an aside, I rather stupidly sent the link to the above text to the dim-witted Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake, one of the hard chargers on the Domenech-as-racist front, whom I assumed -- not having read her overmuch -- was a reasonable person of reasonable honesty. Optimism is a virtue, but I was wrong.)
Third is the post in which he reprinted the entirety of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, stating this:
[MLK was] one of America's most eloquent advocates for freedom and equal rights. King was no conservative (ed. note -- I agree), was often co-opted by extremists, and had many personal failings. But he was the most passionate American advocate since Frederick Douglass for the belief that people are people (no matter how small), no matter the color of their skin.
Dr. King was a sinner. But he was a man - as much a man as every other American man. The extremists, on the right and on the left, could never take that away from him. And that is why he could not fail.
Read the comments at that last post. In them, Joshua Claybourn asks, "Are you aware the (sic) 'Dr.' King plagiarized extensively on his doctoral thesis, as well as on a number of other writings and speeches?....I think it's a travesty that we continue to give him the title od (sic) 'Doctor' but revoke it from others for less serious offenses." Domenech swiftly -- and in light of later events, poignantly -- replies: "Of course I'm aware, Josh....I don't feel that those sins ought to undermine his integrity on the issues that matter most."
When, much later, I had my own contretemps with the racist "evilcons" -- see here and here -- I relied heavily on Domenech for pointers and factual assistance. And still later, I was privy to a conversation in which Domenech stood up to apologists for a semi-prominent conservative anti-Semite. He did this at no small danger to his career, and for my part, I respect him for it. At every turn, then, my experience has been that my initial assessment of Ben Domenech as a solid ally in our common fight to expel the vestigial racists from the conservative movement was utterly correct.
This, then, is the man whom the online left is reviling as a racist. Jane Hamsher, driven vastly more by spleen than sense, is doing it. Crooks & Liars, following the herd, is doing it. Steve Gilliard, who would see racism in a chess game -- and in anything, really, except the mirror -- is doing it. Dullish leftist talk host Taylor Marsh is doing it. The dKossers are doing it. And they're hardly alone: Google returns well over a quarter-million hits on the topic.
What, then, is driving them? Admittedly this is not the brightest crowd of kids to ever assemble at the ice-cream truck, but surely they did not conjure up Domenech-as-racist ex nihilo? In fact, there are three specific things driving their petty jihad, and we should address them in turn:
First is Domenech's re-posting of a piece by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus in First Things, in which the latter takes on the Freakonomics posit of abortion-as-crime-control by beginning with a Swiftean assertion that "[p]eople who are poor and black are a drag on society [and we] would all be better off if there were fewer of them." A great many among the online left took this line at face value as a sincere assertion, which only speaks to their own lack of reading comprehension: further in the piece, Neuhaus quite explicitly denounces this very line of thought as "morally odious," and makes clear that he is not among "those who think we would all be better off with fewer black people." If, as is reasonable given his comment-free re-post, we assume that Domenech agrees wholly with Neuhaus, how does one draw forth racism from this except by sheer incomprehension of what is written? Compounded with Domenech's history as laid forth above, it defies all reason to conclude otherwise. And yet, defiance of reason is no obstacle to the Domenech-as-racist crowd. Second is Domenech's description of Coretta Scott King as a Communist. He has already described that as a "mistake" and "hyperbole." I'll go one step further and describe it as defensible hyperbole. Coretta Scott King was many things. Her signal work -- the unflagging support of her husband in his own great work -- should not obscure the whole of her record. She was a co-founder of the anti-American SANE in 1957 -- an organization which five years later was forced by publicity to purge its ranks, shot through with, yes, Communists. She was a "Women's Strike for Peace" delegate in 1962; that group, which in the 1960s never saw a Communist aggression it didn't like, later distinguished itself by protesting in defense of Serb actions in Kosovo. She was an early and vocal advocate of American retreat and defeat in Vietnam, preceding her husband by years. She was a staunch advocate of homosexual "marriage." She was a stalwart defender of animal "rights," adopting a vegan diet and declaring that her late husband's moral defense of human rights somehow extended to the whole of the animal kingdom. She was, in short, a lifelong hard-left activist of precisely the sort whom we would feel safe to ignore, and whose public work we would feel safe to deride, but for the circumstance of her marriage. In this light, "Communist" is at once an inaccurate specific, and an accurate shorthand. Is it racist to state this? Is racism defined by the failure to venerate specific persons? Look again to Domenech's public defenses of -- and admiration for -- Martin Luther King, Jr. And then, just for kicks, look to Domenech's citation of MLK as a moral authority in the public square. Then make the case that his characterization of that man's wife is evidence of racism. Third is Domenech's post, upon the death of Shelby Foote, relating anecdotes from the life of Jefferson Davis. Let it be said, please, that I have little empathy with nostalgia for the Old South, except as a fundamentally unserious romanticization of history. (On which count, hey, I admire Robert E. Lee -- for his character, not his choices. Let the Trevino-as-racist meme begin!) Let it also be said that while in my experience I have never heard Domenech speak of Jefferson Davis, I have heard him talk a great deal about Shelby Foote. I have heard him talk about reading Shelby Foote. I have heard him talk about re-reading Shelby Foote. I have heard him talk about wisdom from Shelby Foote. I have heard him talk about Shelby Foote's opinions. I have had him e-mail me, unbidden, passages from Shelby Foote. All of which leads one to the ineluctable conclusion: Ben Domenech really likes Shelby Foote. This, in a sane world, might suggest a different motivation than racism for the Jefferson Davis posting. But this is not a sane world.
I do not labor under the fantasy that those presently convinced of Domenech's enduring racism will be swayed by this mere recounting of facts. They are a hateful crowd, spurred on by an embittered loathing and paranoia that Domenech inflamed, but did not create. But I am hopeful that people not yet convinced either way might consider the man's public record with more honesty than his enemies bring to the square. It is enough that he is revealed as a plagiarist: there is ruination and humiliation in that, and for it, as Mike Krempasky noted, he will "wander in the wilderness as he rightly should." But plagiarism is not a crime of hate; it is not a black mark on the soul; and it is not, one suspects, foremost among the crimes for which God will demand an accounting on the last day. And so, against the accusation of that sort of crime -- against the accusation of racism -- I, a friend of the fallen, cannot remain silent.
I guess I was naive enough to believe that the left could be satisfied with bringing Ben down based on his youthful indescretions. I was wrong.
As time passes, I grow more and more disgusted with the vile rhetoric that spews from their mouths and their fingertips. At what point are the sane among them going to stand up for themselves and their principles and say, "ENOUGH ALREADY!"????
Those of us on Ben's side of this know exactly how you feel and you've defended him in a way that most of us could not--with dignity, grace and honesty.
There are many of us here who forgive him and are waiting to welcome him back.
Thanks for the great post!
BTW, any word on how he's doing?
I'd no sooner do that than respond to one of the "presents" my dog leaves on the grass after she digests her food.
But I'm glad you did.
What I saw last Friday was evil. The nullifidian does not understand this, but he perpetuates it.
This medium is built with distance, though, and I'd prefer to think that this would not have happened if they had been looking Ben in the eyes.
it will be about the same time all of the sane Muslims stand up for themselves against the terrorists hijacking their religion and say, "ENOUGH ALREADY!"
I wish it would happen soon.
One can only hope to have friends with your eloquence coming to one's defense should the need ever arise.
Anyone who is hated by the left is a friend and a comrade in the struggle for freedom.
They don't care about plagiarism. If they did, they'd be demanding the Sherrod Brown resign as their nominee in Ohio.
All they care about is hating us.
It is the only thing that holds their frail coalition of freaks, wacko's, rejects, and losers together.
I'll gladly read his opinions, once he begins to write for the public again.
His ideas and intellect make the whole conservative movement stronger.
Don't stay away too long, Augustine
It is sometimes much easier to be the rabid attack dog, when you can do so from a distance, and sometimes even forget that a real human is on the other end.
While I love the interenet, and love reading/posting at various blogs, I also think the anonymity leads people to be nastier than they probably would be otherwise.
I fear that you are fighting a losing battle here. The left doesn't care that Ben/You/Me/Republicans aren't really racists. They used that word as a club for beating conservatives. When somebody calls you a racist, yelling "no I'm not" isn't an effective counter-argument, even if all the evidence is on your side. Merely by denying the charge you reinforce it. The best retort is a snappy comeback, because the only effective way to defuse the seriousness of the charge is with mockery. For example:
- "I'm as racist as John Kerry is Irish."
- "If I'm racist, Bill Clinton is a virgin."
- "If I'm racist Jesse Jackson loves Jews."
- "I'm an equal opportunity racist; I hate all races equally." (the Florence King model)
- "Actually, I [insert name] am to racism as Bill Clinton is to monogamy."
- "What? Me, a racist? Sure, I'll be joining the Klan about the same James Carville joins the hair club for men."
- "What? Me, a racist? Sure, I'll be joining the Klan about the same time as Al Gore has a personality surgically implanted in his brain."
- "What? Me, a racist? Sure, I'll be joining the Klan about the same time as Bill Clinton joins a monastery."
- "Sure I'm a racist; I hate the French."
Or, if you really want to "leave a mark":
- "Sure I'm a racist; I hate black people as much as Sean Penn loves America." (hint: substitute the name of just about any Hollywood liberal to achieve the same effect)
- "Sure I'm a racist; I hate black people as much as Rosie O'Donnell loves men."
- "Sure I'm a racist; I hate black people as much as Hillary Clinton loves her husband."
Or let's say you merely want to be disarmingly funny:
- "No way, I'm not a racist! Why, I love black people as much as Oprah loves a buffet of twinkies and ho hos."
- "Do I hate black people? Ha! Jazz, Blues, and BBQ - What's not to love?"
Or my personal favorite:
15) "Hating people for their skin color is a narrow way of thinking. I'd much rather hate them for the content of their character."
You are a friend.
The thing we on the ocnservative side have to wake up to is that
- we are human
- we cannot keep letting the enemy set the standards.
Ben has been done in by people who accept Kennedy, Biden, Clinton (either one) as leaders. Who defend castro, osama, the PLO, 'false but true',e tc.
We either rally around our people, knowing they are human, or we will be destroyed by the enemy.
And they are our enemies.
The first I heard of this was thurs night I was at a recording of a program that PJ O'Rourke was at. The WaPo thing was brought up, not by PJ, who didn't really address it. No names, no allegations of racism or anything else.
Having no idea this was Augustine, or anything else, I came back to RS as a fluke, and found the Jill Carroll piece and this.
I am liberal. And I do care about plagiarism. Across the board. I also think that all actions need to be judged in the context of someone's full life, and Ben should have many years ahead of him to make this a small footnote in what will hopefully be an long and productive life.
I respect that many of you are very close to Ben, and that this has become a personal thing, especially as there are folks that are attacking his character, his family, and coming up with silly stuff just to smear him. I don't believe in that, and am sorry that it is happening.
What does shock and surprise me are some of the ways that Ben is being defended. I am going to take Ben out of this entirely, and make this general, as I think it is a general issue. I went to a college with an honor code. No proctors, open exam sessions (show up when you want to take the test), take home closed book tests etc. We took that very seriously, and understood clearly what it meant, and that to break it would be to damage the entire community. I spent 9 years getting two post secondary degrees, my husband spent 8 on his two. Both of us very clearly understood the moral, academic and social consequences of plagiarism, and were able to translate that from the academic world into our professional worlds. When one lies in any aspect of one's life, it makes other aspects suspect, even if the perpetrator is otherwise as honest as the day is long. Bill Clinton's lies and obfuscations devalued him greatly in my book (and no, I am not even touching adultery etc, I am addressing lies only, of which plagiarism is one) and took away my trust in him as an individual and as a president.
The comments about jealousy also surprise me. I am sure people did envy the prominence and respect that Ben comanded. But it is not a sense of jealously that makes someone decide that plagiarism is wrong. Being in the public eye makes one open to allegations, false and otherwise. One does one's best to navigate this by ensuring that there is no fire behind the smoke.
Then to read the Jill Carroll thread, and the rush to judgments that she is a terrorist conspirator, anti-American, complicit in murder, 28 year olds shouldn't have a platform from which to speak as they lack maturity and wisdom, and that seems to me allowing the smearing of another person while vigorously defending some things that are indefensible ("just a movie review?" plagiarism is plagiarism).
People should stand by their friends, but by their person and character, not by their wrongful actions. Defending against false allegations of racism, personal attacks etc is the mark of a strong community and a good friend, but to defend actual wrongs diminishes the individuals and the community in the eyes of others.
There is a human tendency to believe the worst in what one reads, at first blush, and without further investigation.
Jill Carroll, Ben Domenech, and Antonin Scalia are all victims of this on RedState, and the jury is still out, to one degree or another, on the respective first impressions.
The question is what we do when the truth comes out -- do we willfully ignore it, or try to right the wrongs we have errantly committed?
that Ben made a mistake.
It's unavoidable that Ben's mistakes make it harder to defend him against the other attacks, but don't despair over it. The opponent here has no interest in intellectual honesty. It's almost impossible to win an intellectual argument against such an opponent.
The trick here is not to let the sorrow and anger of this moment turn you in to one of them. At some point, their desire to win overtook their integrity. Don't let the same happen to you.
by this whole affair, is how young all of you are. This is not a criticism, just an observation. Ben is, what, 24? Or have I misunderstood?
You started RedState in 2003, when Ben was 21? You refer to:
I asked Ben Domenech, whom I knew from our days as speechwriters for HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson, to join me in the endeavor.
From this I take it to mean Ben was writing speeches for TT before he was old enough to drink? (Probably a good thing, since politicians will drive you to drink!)
In the charges of plagiarism lodged against Ben, he was writing for NRO and other national publications at 17? It blows me away that publications rely on writers so young.
Plagiarism at that age, unfortunately, hardly seems wrong. With highlight and cut-and-paste, it is just so easy to take thoughts of others and post them as your own. Those not trained as journalists hardly give it another thought!
When I was in HS, you went to the encyclopedia for info, had to re-write what you read, usually paraphrasing the info. Now, online, cut-and-paste...how much HS research is original and how much is straight from the web.
I personally think he might have been set up. The WaPo had access to everything he had written. How hard was it to select him just so he COULD be shot down? A conservative is proven to be a plagiarist. Hey, they tried to be fair and balanced! Who can blame them for their liberal views, when a conservative voice can't be found who isn't tainted?
I personally think he might have been set up. This thought is not entirely my own, but was brought to mind by GordonTaylor.
I don't want to be accused of plagiarism! :>}
If you will read Mike and Josh's stories regarding Ben's actions, I think you will find that they did just that.
They stood up for Ben against the vile and hateful comments spewed at him and his family and have acknowledged that as a very young man, he has screwed up. While I know none of them personally, I can't help but think that they have had more than one conversation with him about the severity of his past trangressions and their disappointment wrt his actions. As well they should.
Now it is time for Ben to move forward though. And as friends, they need to help him and try to deflect the crap that has been thrown at him.
Maybe you think we were wrong to defend. Or maybe you just view personal friendships differently than the rest of us. At any rate, I would have expectd no less from these guys.
Nicely done, well-cited piece on Augustine. I know you've got your own windmills to tilt at, but we don't hear from you nearly enough.
The bile and venom exhibited by the rabid-left is so hate-filled, so gratuiously cruel. Jumping on the man's family, and continuing to do so, bespeaks an utter lack of character.
One wonders if there is any contingent on the left that (1) is reasonable, and at the same time (2) has any clout inside their own house. I know for a fact that #1 exists -- ie, reasonable, sane, honest liberals/leftists/progressives. But they seem to be completely drowned out by the screeching banshees over there.
And I'll take this opportunity to repeat myself to Augustine -- you are among family here, bro. We have no doubt about your character, we've seen you tested by fire. Drop in and say 'Hi' pretty soon. You're missed.
I disapprove very, very strongly of plagiarism, and I'm no knee-jerk defender of this site on many issues. I have criticized the rush to judgment on Jill Carroll in a diary entry. But I would make 2 strong points in response to your criticism.
First, while the plagiarism charges against him are clearly true, and deserve condemnation, the other charges (which are all that Trevino wrote about here) are even more clearly false. Mr. Domenech is no racist and has fought strongly against both overt racism and against giving aid and comfort to closet racists. He deserves and has earned strong defense against such charges from both his friends and anyone else interested in the truth.
Second, while I think the rush to judgment by some (and only some) on this site made of Jill Carroll was inappropriate, I say that only because I think this site can and should be held to a higher standard than the left generally holds for its own. What some posters said about Carroll is as nothing compared with the false venom the left spewed about Mr. Domenech until, in their ranting, they stumbled upon a true charge. Those on the left who plagiarize and fabricate are often not fired, and are allowed to keep minor prizes.
So, while I think several people here may have been carried away in the heat of the emotion surrounding recent events, trevino's post here is 100% honest and appropriate, and your criticsm of it unjust.
... was he ever the right choice for so difficult a spot?
I say this not to impugn his talent, or anything else about him for that matter. I just have a problem with the WaPo putting such a young man (albeit wise beyond his years in many ways) into the line of fire that way. We hear these days so often about how the conservatives have been building their bench these past 50 years. Knowing what a difficult assignment this was going to be, why not throw a grizzed veteran out there instead? The New Republic ran a piece with this theme and it's an interesting take. I think this angle merits discussion as well.
All of that said, I roll my eyes when Michael Moore complains about getting death threats. Am I supposed to feel differently about the attacks against Domenech? In both cases, the threats that occur are unconscionable. Also in both cases, they are nothing more than a bunch of hot air coming from mental midgets.
While the plagiarism is wrong, he was called on it, and the main penalty he deserved on it happened-he lost his job, but what happened before (the racism, attacks on his family etc) was out of line and indefensible, and what happened after (which seems mostly like piling on) is over the top.
(2) has any clout inside their own house. I know for a fact that #1 exists -- ie, reasonable, sane, honest liberals/leftists/progressives. But they seem to be completely drowned out by the screeching banshees over there.
I think this is an excellent point all around. I generally don't read at the liberal blogs, especially the comments sections, because it does seem to be a bunch of screeching banshees, and it just isn't interesting the mine through the crap to get to anything worthwhile.
There are some good liberal bloggers out there, who make reasonable arguments, but they do indeed tend to get drowned out by the screechers.
I was referred to this diary - what a wonderful defense of a friend. We should all have friends like you.
I find it sad that Ben's reaction is to link his blog to a vile cartoon attacking his attackers. He should link to this post instead.
you've been told before on other posts that those are NOT Ben's links. Yet you still come back and say it again. Methinks you are not so sympathetic as you might seem. No sym at all!
Sophie's comment is a valid one, and does not imply a lack of empathy.
We all must defend against this vile form of demonization. The Hamshers of the world don't consider us just opponents, but enemies.
And I might add, it is your information that I have often relied on in some of my recent blog posts (and some posts here) on immigration - particularly when noting that people you and Ben Domenich have cited as evilcons have been cited by a certain columnist/blogger. It is one thing for an accusation of racism to come from Julian Bond/the NAACP or from La Raza. It is another when sober and rational people like yourself and Mr. Domenech make that comment/observation.
I will note that it seems of late his website has been hacked/defaced. More of the typical digital thuggery I have come to expect from the left, I suppose. They are singularly unable to admit someon can come to a different conclusion - so they shout him down or worse. I just hope the right does not follow down that path as well.