TRAITORS OF LIBERALISM

by Charlotte Laws Ph.D.

(published May 1999)

Treason, as an absolute wrong under the law, dates back to the first criminal statute enacted in English history, passed by Parliament under Edward III in 1351. Crogan, an Irish priest, was prosecuted in 1634 for threatening to kill the King of England although he never acted upon his objectionable words, and since then, crimes of national betrayal reportedly have been committed by Anthony Blunt, Anthony Cramer, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and others.

But treason is not the most recent and notorious crime of betrayal in the news. The traitor's brother, a moral offender called the "snitch," has stolen the Oscar and almost brought down a President. Many protested against Elia Kazan at the Academy Awards for his subpoenaed testimony before the House un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in 1952 in which he gave the names of Communist sympathizers who were thereafter blacklisted from Hollywood. And recently, millions criticized Linda Tripp for her overt cooperation with Kenneth Starr and her act of secretly tape recording conversations with Monica Lewinsky.

Although Kazan and Tripp have been publicly branded betrayers of trust and friendship, they are arguably nothing more than betrayers of the liberal agenda, betrayers of that which is deemed politically correct. Various forms of betrayal, be it treason, snitching, or adultery, are subject to the moral interpretation and judgment of the ideologically dominant, today known as the politically correct. When a violation of trust is deemed legitimate, it quickly gets a make-over, a dab of color here , a little glamour there, finding itself idealized on the cover of People magazine above the words, "brave," "inspiring," or "hero." The hero is often described as "following her conscience" or as "abiding by the law."

Whether it be true or not, Kazan and Tripp claim to have followed their consciences, the former fearing communism as "a dangerous and alien conspiracy," and the latter convinced of the President's complicity in felonies. In addition, Kazan and Tripp abided by the law, knowing that noncompliance with the HUAC, the Paula Jones trial, or the Independent Council could have landed them in jail. Yet despite all of this, they are not admired for bravery or moral heroism; instead their "conscience choices" are dubbed illegitimate by the culturally dominant.

Yet what if Stalin-like communism had quashed democracy in the 1950's? Would not the masses today praise Kazan as a hero for providing names, for attempting to avert starvation and mass annihilation? If Kazan had instead informed on friends who were secret members of a well organized and politically viable Nazi party, would he not be revered? Or what if Kazan had snitched on colleagues plotting to ignite an abortion clinic?

Perhaps Tripp would have been publicly supported if , in complying with her conscience, she used her tape recorder to document racist and anti-Semitic remarks made by a powerful senator friend. And if the senator had instead conspired with others to abolish abortion rights, perhaps Tripp would have been encouraged to betray her friendship for the sake of a higher cause.

In short, is it possible that Kazan and Tripp are criticized because their violations of trust do not conform to the agenda of liberalism, the dominant ideology of the 90's?

Ironically, when Kazan and Tripp chose to defend democracy and uphold the law, they fueled the engines of the conservatives, thus offending the politically correct. The brought to the fore new kind of treason, and they themselves became traitors of liberalism.

Go HOME
TOP OF PAGE
Back to Philosophical Articles Page