The Denunciatory Ethic Part I

This is the first of a three part series from News New Mexico on an American phenomenon known as the Denunciatory Ethic.

Jeremiah Wright

We recall reading defenses of the rants of Reverend Jeremiah Wright  (left) prior to the 2008 election. And after watching President Calderon of Mexico bash Arizona while being interviewed on CNN by Wolf Blitzer a few weeks ago, See video of the Blitzer - Calderon interview here: we recall a piece we read two decades ago.     It was former Wall Street Journal editor Paul Craig Roberts that offered a poignant explanation of the brand of philosophy known as the “Denunciatory Ethic.” According to Roberts, the United States has been influenced by this philosophy and has been steadily moving from an affirmative view of itself to a denunciatory view. Supposedly the nightmare experiences of Vietnam and Watergate played a role in accelerating this process. And not surprisingly, a new state law in Arizona has provided a fresh impetus for its re-emergence.

Paul Craig Roberts

    According to Roberts (right), the “Denunciatory Ethic,” prefers that Americans be generous in their views of the actions of non-Americans, but very critical towards itself. Eugene Rostow also described this mindset:
  “We tend to blame ourselves for everything that goes wrong in the world and to assume that other nations share our good intentions and will follow our good example. We take pride in self-flagellation, and seize every opportunity for excusing or ignoring the faults and short-comings of others.”
    Several questions arise. Is self-induced shame a useful tool for achieving change? Or would a bill to correct a perceived deficiency in the federal immigration law be better? Is national self-flagellation a blueprint for enlightened leadership? Is stressing the highlighting America’s past shortcomings rather than building on past achievements and successes right?

    In Texas there has been a bitter battle over text book composition. The Denunciation Ethic is at the center of this battle. On one side proponents interested in stressing America’s virtues want more balance. On the other side the denunciation ethic is preferred. Which approach will result in better education?
   No fair minded individual can deny that the U.S. government has made many policy mistakes since its inception. It is also true that America is the most charitable nation in human history. Is it a good idea for any nation, even America, to attempt to engage in a conscious effort to suppress recognition of its collective achievements?

Louis Farrakhan

    Two years ago Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s sermons tried to make the case for the denunciation ethic much as Louis Farrakhan has on many occasions (left). On videotape (watch here) from his pulpit, Rev. Wright offered many premises that he felt could enable him to blame “white” America for deaths caused by radical Islamic suicide bombers. Repeatedly denouncing America, (especially white America) was the common thread connecting the messages conveyed in that Chicago church.

    Strangely enough, when the nuances are stripped away, denouncers are found attempting to sanction the process of the U.S. engaging in a war with itself. There is an unmistakable pattern of duplicity in the way a denouncer evaluates churches. Greater fault is found with Pat Roberson’s pro-life church sermons than with Pastor Wright’s “Goddamn America,” curses. Apparently denouncers simply cannot bring themselves to condemn both the cursing of America and the pro-life stance, and be done with it. One is condemnable and one requires further explanation. Is there a good working definition of a denouncer? The definition of a denouncer was defined by Paul Craig Roberts as follows:
   “His (or her) commitment to society is conditional upon pushing through the changes in institutions and policies that he thinks are necessary to bring about desired improvements. Therefore his allegiance at any point in time is weak; to satisfy his desire for progress, he feels he must remain an opponent of existing society. He does not see his country’s gifts of foreign aid as attesting to its moral sense, but the insufficient amount is evidence to him of an immoral foreign policy. He justifies foreign nationalization of his fellow citizens’ property as a necessary remedy for neocolonial exploitation.
    Do we see signs of the disrespect of American society in the words of denouncers? The denouncer’s mindset is not new. However, Robert’s simple definition sheds a great deal of light on why some people can so easily accept America bashing. And Roberts’ definition of a denouncer also helps explain why some people actually find it difficult to say they are proud of their country.
    The framework of the intellectual game the denouncers play is an approach that implies that all self-defined American “patriots” possess a basic lack of “objectivity.” And by contrast, the denouncers own willingness to be openly “anti-American” should be automatically accepted as a positive connotation.

Felipe Caleron

    How could some members of Congress give a standing ovation to a outgoing Mexican president while he bashed America? For several decades denouncers have routinely encouraged U.S. citizens not to be troubled by anti-Americanism. They believe the embracing of the contradictory views of Calderon on border issues makes sense because it represents a core opposition to imperialism, neo-colonialism, racism, sexism, commercial exploitation, pollution, poverty, inequality, and yes, even “war.” Accordingly, denouncers find it easier than ever to embrace the language of President Calderon despite his explanations of Mexico’s immigration policies with its southern neighbors.
  Denouncers are very comfortable embracing expressions of anti-American philosophies. Somehow they seem to feel this implies they are in possession of more “broadmindedness.” At its very core the Denunciation Ethic, is routinely characterized as “nuance” by its practitioners.

Eric Holder

    In the words of Roberts, denouncers want to be “perceived” as uniquely capable of transcending the narrow interests of their country. This explains why U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (right) would have our country borrow money to sue Arizona. He among others carefully crafts a self-image so as to insure that others think they represent the world, humanity, and only mankind’s best impulses. The foundation of this posture implies that a bash America philosophical viewpoint represents an incontrovertible claim on the moral high ground. Attempts to set themselves apart from those they feel wish to remain “insensitive” to America’s past mistakes is at the core of the denouncers psyche. And disdain for those that quickly jump to the defense of their country are branded as the parochial thought processes of hopelessly misguided, bitter, one-dimensional patriots who are incapable of attaining a higher quality of “objectivity.” In Part II we will dig deeper into the political underpinnings and media role in the Denunciatory Ethic.

The Denunciatory Ethic Part I