Ted Byfield, Dishonest Sack of Crap

Conservative Canadian commentator Ted Byfield is pleased as punch at the "Right-Thinking" of a Canadian Lefty, a Mr. Rick Salutin. Byfield saluted Salutin:

Still the media, possibly reflecting the public rage, demanded a culprit. The university administration must have been negligent; fire the president. Or the university security staff; fire the chief. But what can a university do? Expel every "loner" introvert? Deny admission to anyone ever treated by a psychiatrist? Prohibit mental "depression"? Make classes so "secure" that getting in would be like boarding an airliner? None of this made sense. By the week's end, even the Canadian commentariat was acknowledging by its silence that it could neither explain the tragedy nor convincingly blame anybody.

But this is most distressing for them, because along with their new secular society comes the implicit offer: "We will keep you safe in this brave new world, and all social problems will be solved." At Virginia Tech, they didn't, and they weren't. Nor, barring a massive change in societal attitudes, does it ever seem likely.

This thesis was lucidly set forth by a single commentator, and a most improbable one. The experts of our technologically advanced society, he wrote, have proven "ineffective in the crucial task of protecting the community from danger, compared to less professional players of earlier eras: family, friends, community, religion. These societies seemed better than ours at containing the violent, archaic impulses of individuals."

Their control "was based on an entire social fabric that was hierarchical and patriarchal. It included a religion institutionalized in churches and a moral code that tolerated sex within narrow limits. Parental authority was backed by religion (honor thy parents) and by sanctions such as the threat of hell."

"All this was internalized in a sense of guilt and shame over violations. There was reverence for country and a sense of debt to those who died in war 'for us.' There was a penal code that didn't stand much tinkering in the name of civil rights." Great wars provided an outlet for suppressed violence. Lynching was "institutionalized." Even "dissenters – artists, rebels, etc. – could feel a certain security that their acts would not lead to total social breakdown and chaos, frightening even to themselves."

That by-gone society, without doubt, would have blamed Cho himself for the slaughter, attributing it to a single cause: human evil. And that society "worked." What we're doing now may not.

And who was this singular spokesman? Not some rabid, rightwing traditionalist (like, say, me), but none other than Globe and Mail columnist Rick Salutin: ex-Marxist labor union leader and long-time voice of the left. What strange bedfellows these tragic and changing times do make.

This would be more effective (or interesting) if Byfield wasn't cherry-picking his quotes and ignoring the actual argument being made. Your first clue should have been that, per Hughes' strange portrayal of it, Salutin seems to be including lynching (and "great wars") among his list of positive traits about the past.

Let's take a closer look at this. Not surprisingly, Byfield decided against including a link to the original Salutin article. Check it out.

I tend to agree that there are uncomfortable issues about authority here. Take the role of faculty and staff at Virginia Tech. I found them impressive. They showed concern, identified the risky student and got him to a psychiatric facility. His English profs removed him from class but tutored him. Yet they were ineffective in the crucial task of protecting the community from danger compared to the less professional players of earlier eras: family, friends, community, religion. Those societies seemed better than ours at containing the violent, anarchic impulses of individuals.

I know this sounds awfully traditional. Let me try to save myself from nostalgia for the fifties (or 1500s) by saying what I think "worked" in earlier times. The ability to keep the dangerous impulses of individuals under control was based on an entire social fabric that was hierarchical and patriarchal. It included religion, institutionalized in churches; and a moral code that tolerated sex within narrow limits. Parental authority was backed by religion (honour thy parents) and by sanctions such as the threat of hell.

All this was internalized in a sense of guilt and shame over violations. There was reverence for country, and a sense of debt to those who died in war "for us." There was a penal code that didn't stand much tinkering in the name of civil rights, and a set of formal outlets for violent impulses that had been repressed. These included regular wars on a massive scale, as well as institutionalized racism and lynching. In such societies, dissenters -- artists, rebels etc. -- could feel a certain security that their acts would not lead to total social breakdown and chaos frightening even to themselves. It all "worked" in the sense that it largely kept the lid on menacing impulses, or channelled them elsewhere than the local schoolyard or college. With the breakdown in recent decades of this fabric, particular players can try to impose controls and limits -- parents, schools, teachers, courts, governments -- but they will not be nearly as effective as they were within a total framework that no longer exists.

The human and emotional costs were monstrous. People were dulled to their own experience and each other. I would not want to restore this set of constraints if one could, and one can't. You can't put that lid back on again. You can only try and fail, with further disastrous consequences.

The issue is now: Can our society devise a set of social controls that prevent explosions like Virginia Tech, but do not require severe repression and an impossible return to the undesirable traits of earlier eras? ...Can you have a non-racist, non-patriarchal, non-sexually repressive, non-hierarchical, non-authoritarian yet orderly society that manages to control its potentially aberrant members? What would it look like and how would you get there? That's the utopian project for our time.

Hmmm. Byfield takes the first part of Salutin's analysis, where he sets up his argument, and ignores the rest, where he actually examines what worked about the old forms of social control, why they wouldn't work today, and how we can try to make new ones relevant to modern times. Only an illiterate fool would read Salutin's piece and conclude that he's complimenting the social repression of bygone years. I guess intellectual honesty isn't a big priority for Ted.

Edited to give Ted the correct surname. Thanks to Terry Krepel of ConWebWatch for pointing out the error, and all apologies to Mr. Hughes, who I'm sure was a totally nice guy once you got to know him.