Accountability for Thought Crimes

The brouhaha over the speech by Barack Obama’s pastor is troublesome. We here in the United States don’t have double standards. We’re above that – our standards are triple, quadruple. Typical of any great power where citizens are deeply indoctrinated from birth, any sentiment expressed against our country and its activities are automatically held up for ridicule and condemnation. Those who hold themselves up for leadership have to profess deep and abiding love for the motherland, and commissars and brownshirts are on the lookout for transgressions. Even if the perceived sin is minor or disconnected from the candidate, he is held accountable.

So I note with interest that Barack Obama has been called to task for 1) not wearing a lapel pin showing the flag; 2) not holding his hand over his heart during the national anthem; 3) having a wife who implied that in times past she had not “really” been proud of her country; and 4) having a pastor who knows a little history and gave some emotional expression thereto.

Standards were no less severe in the old Soviet Union. Commissars were really proud all the time.

Thoughtful journalists are now analyzing the speech by The Reverend Jeremiah Wright for ideological purity. It’s not that the reverend is not allowed to express his thoughts freely. We pride ourselves in allowing free expression. But we do punish it severely. (We never allow thought criminals to appear on TV or be published in newspapers, except to be ridiculed.) The Reverend Wright obviously committed thought crime. The only question is, should Barack Obama be held accountable for the crime?

Most say yes – he is guilty by association. Some are withholding judgment – yes, there is some sort of crime here, but let’s withhold full imputation of guilt until the exact nature of the crime is detailed. Gotta hear the whole speech.

It’s not a matter of extremism. All manners of extremism are expressed daily in our land, though I must admit that when everyone is extreme, no one is extreme.

Take for example the beliefs of Pastor John Hagee, who has endorsed John McCain. Hagee’s views are probably not extreme here in the home of the brave, hence the free pass. But he has called the Catholic Church a “great whore”, a standard fundamentalist view, and believes that the Unites States should launch a first strike on the sovereign nation of Iran, thereby triggering Armageddon. Billions will die in that event, but fundamentalists, giving way to base sadism, rejoice in that.

John McCain says he is “very honored” by Hagee’s support, though it must be said that he is concerned about losing the Catholic vote. That’s rational.

I’m slow and thick, so bear with me: We only hold politicians accountable for thought crimes that involve criticism of the United States? The expression of hatred for the Catholic Church or a death wish for the mass of humanity is common, not extreme, and therefore not punishable?

I come in contact with this every day. Our atmosphere is oppressive, rigorous orthodoxy is vigorously enforced. But we also have a first amendment. We are different from the Soviets in that we don’t put people in jails or asylums for speaking out against the homeland. We’re more thoughtful than that. We merely marginalize these people and excoriate anyone even remotely associated with them.

You gotta have your mind right. And the lesson here is that if we associate with anyone who expresses thoughts that are not patriotic, there is accountability.

I got it now. Barack Obama, you are guilty of thought crime. Account for yourself.