The Opinions in this Article are those of the Author and Do Not Necessarily Reflect the Opinion of The Atlantic or Its Staff

Earlier this year The Atlantic published the following assertion:

Black nationalists have always perceived something unmentionable about America that integrationists dare not acknowledge—that white supremacy is not merely the work of hotheaded demagogues, or a matter of false consciousness, but a force so fundamental to America that it is difficult to imagine the country without it. ... What is needed is a healing of the American psyche and the banishment of white guilt. ...

What I’m talking about is a national reckoning that would lead to spiritual renewal. Reparations would mean the end of scarfing hot dogs on the Fourth of July while denying the facts of our heritage. Reparations would mean the end of yelling “patriotism” while waving a Confederate flag. Reparations would mean a revolution of the American consciousness, a reconciling of our self-image as the great democratizer with the facts of our history.

The article does not contain the kind of caveat expressed by the title of this post. The Atlantic editors do not caution that the above opinions are not necessarily their own, or those of the magazine. Yet Wikipedia currently asserts:

The Atlantic is an American magazine, founded in 1857 as The Atlantic Monthly in Boston, Massachusetts, now based in Washington, D.C. It was created as a literary and cultural commentary magazine and quickly achieved a national reputation as a high-quality review with a moderate worldview—a reputation it has maintained for over 150 years. (Emphasis added)

For American citizens there could be no greater attack on the principles of liberty, justice, and equality than the above passage. What is celebrated while "scarfing hot dogs on the Fourth of July" are the noble principles which this country proclaimed to the world on that date. What is celebrated is the greatest document in the history of liberal democratic government, the Declaration of Independence.

The author proceeds by innuendo and insinuation. He does not openly state that the principles of equality, liberty, and freedom from tyranny are negated by his litany of American sins. Instead, he casts cowardly aspersion on public-spiritedness, "integrationists," and democratic dispositions, if not on the very idea of principled action itself. How could the editors of The Atlantic be comfortable with this?

The very first post on this weblog, The Liberal Founding, contained a response to a similar critique of American principles by none other than the President.* The response began:

We speak as American citizens who wish to reaffirm America's liberal tradition. At our country's founding, the spirit of liberalism suffused the Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These principles, thus embodied, have inspired the respect of much of the world. - Historian Fritz Stern, refugee from Hitler Germany

Dr. Stern and a number of other signatories continued:

We regret that the President of the United States has taken the lead in vilifying one of our oldest and noblest traditions. He made sport of “the dreaded L-word” and continues to make “liberal” and “liberalism” terms of opprobrium. We are deeply concerned about the erosion and debasement of American values and American traditions that our country has long cherished.

In the past and at its best, liberalism has sought the institutional defense of decency. Everywhere it has fought for the freedom of individuals to attain their fullest development. It has opposed tyranny in all forms, past and present. Liberal policies require constant scrutiny and sometimes revision. Liberal principles—freedom, tolerance, and the protection of the rights of every citizen—are timeless.

Extremists of the right and the left have long attacked liberalism as their greatest enemy. In our own time liberal democracies have been crushed by such extremists.

The author given platform by The Atlantic's hapless editors found it necessary to trash the Declaration (and by implication the Constitution) in order to construct an argument for "reparations." Be not afraid. This American Scripture** continues to have "the respect of much of the world ... [because] Liberal principles—freedom, tolerance, and the protection of the rights of every citizen—are timeless."

A closing note concerning language and propositional assent. The author of this article in The Atlantic is apparently summering in France (or not: "Je vais retourner en aout."). Question: Does "white guilt" apply to the French? Certainly, if there is something uniquely evil about white folks that causes them, alone, to commit slavery, then it applies equally to the French, the Afghans, the Iranians, and so on around the world.

The problem is that attributing unique evil to a given race is classic racism. If this is what The Atlantic's editors meant when they published an unexplained reference to "white guilt," they have, according to standards articulated by Atlantic contributor James Fallows(***), violated the principles of responsible journalism. Fallows recently observed, concerning another article:

I’m sure that fakery has occurred. But the claim that it has is as serious as they come in journalism. It goes at our ultimate source of self-respect. As when saying that a doctor is deliberately misdiagnosing patients, that a pilot is drunk in the cockpit, that a lifeguard is purposely letting people drown, you might be right, but you had better be very, very sure before making the claim.

As when tossing out an unqualified reference to "white guilt."

In How to Think Straight: An Introduction to Critical Reasoning, Anthony Flew cited the Marquis de Vauvenargues:

“Obscurity is the kingdom of error” and “For the philosopher clarity is a matter of good faith.”

The Atlantic article claims that "white supremacy" is "fundamental" to America, and insinuates that principled Americans such as Fritz Stern are wrong in their faith that it is "freedom, tolerance, and the protection of the rights of every citizen" which established the nation and continue to shape it. The article's mishmash logic and language of innuendo and false equivalence further this unprincipled objective. Thus do the media, today, "undermine American democracy."


(*) The post erroneously refers to then presidential candidate George H. W. Bush rather than Reagan. 

(**) Pauline Meyer's book, American Scripture, about the Declaration. "The spreading ideas of natural rights and individual liberty distinctively altered politics, economy and society."

(***) Fallows is the author of Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy.