NATHAN writes:

One of the things Charles wrote in describing a social dilemma in connection with the impending imposition of a homosexual “couple” on his hitherto enjoyable group of oenophiles reminded me of an unpleasant experience I had in 2001. Twelve years later, discord about it lingers with my wife, who believes my sounding off permanently damaged social friendships and probably cost me job opportunities that might have our family in far better financial shape today than we are. She is probably right. The cost of saying what our masters do not want us to hear can be high, if not yet as high as in the Soviet Union. Highly educated Americans — if what elite universities in the United States (American universities no more) offer is “education” — are especially socially programmed, and most are entirely unaware of it.

I have made some changes [in square brackets] in Charles’s description to make it fit my situation in 2001:

I am very concerned that by [stating my opposition to illegal immigration and GW Bush’s proposed amnesty for Mexican illegal aliens], I will offend my friends and adversely affect my relationship with them.  Second, if this were to occur, I can also be certain that I will severely adversely affect my relationship with my wife  –  who will condemn my decision to speak against [illegal immigration and the proposed amnesty, when so many of our friends have illegal-alien Latin American domestics,] as a pointless, ineffectual, arrogant, selfish, and self-indulgent act that may needlessly injure or sacrifice one or more of our valued friendships.  This seems to me to be unfair, but at some level, it is possible that she may be correct in this assessment.

If my experience is indicative, Charles is right to be concerned.  His wife’s assessment, should it be what he expects, would be correct on some level, even though unfair.

While I had been concerned about the flood-tide of immigration into the United States for some time — I did not understand it and could see no good, certainly no American, purpose for it — I did not start speaking up about it until 2001.  It was the combination of seeing cities and towns I frequented rapidly being transformed by displacement-level immigration, mostly of Mexicans, and George W. Bush’s traitorous attempt to deliver on an inarticulate campaign promise by giving a selective illegal-alien amnesty to his beloved Mexicans that got me started.  The events of September 11th of that year – though Mexicans were among the victims and none of the perpetrators – only sharpened my concern.

So I did start to speak up, to find out what people thought of what was happening, to try to make people aware of it, and to point out that, absent dramatic change (which, 12+ years later still has not happened), our country would be changed beyond recognition.  Well, in 2001 the sort of well-to-do Americans with whom we were associating, many alumni of Ivy league and comparable universities with lucrative Wall Street jobs, mostly thought that was just alarmist and silly, and probably racist.

At a Christmas party – bad choice of venue, I know! – I allowed myself to be drawn into debate with a woman whom until then I had considered a friend.  I should have realized just how liberal she is, but wasn’t thinking about that.  She is an immigrant herself, from Rhodesia (white).  Of course she can never go home, but believes the devastation of what used to be her country represents progress of a sort.  Somehow that belief coexists in her head with an absolute absence of any illusions about black Africans.  The mind of a liberal is a wonderful thing.

But I digress.  Eventually I stepped into her trap – and I do believe she was entrapping me – which she promptly sprang.  She said, in a joking way, “Well, when I first came to New York I was illegal – would you have deported me?”  Honest if not too wise fellow that I am, I said “If you were in New York illegally, of course I would have,” thinking foolishly that this was just banter.

Not at all.  She immediately burst into (crocodile) tears, sprang up and started going from table to table telling anyone who would listen that I wanted to throw her out of the country.  That did substantially dent my reputation among many of the people among whom we live, most of them unreflectively liberal – even the GOP voters.  And it did hurt us socially.  Invitations stopped coming from certain quarters, and some people who had been quite friendly to me turned distinctly frosty.  The social ostracism bothered my wife far more than me; to be fair, she hadn’t precipitated it.  And she still has not entirely forgiven me for it.

So, I would say to Charles that unless you are confident that your wife shares your views and is willing to bear the consequences of your expressing them, think carefully before you speak up.

I know the Epistle tells us that wives are to be subordinate to their husbands, but we no longer live in Saint Paul’s world and making that work in practice can be difficult indeed.  Our most important human relationship is with our wives or husbands.  Is it entirely just to ask one’s wife to risk social ostracism so one can express an opinion, however important?  In principle, yes.  In practice it’s not so black-and-white.  I thoughtlessly – although I believe with good motives – put our relationship at risk, and we’re still paying a price for it today.  And not only between my wife and me.  There are still people I liked and considered friends who will have nothing to do with me now: I’m a racist, or at least a xenophobe.

In Charles’s case, substitute the nonsensical neologism “homophobe.”  But that ridiculous non-word has come to have the same power of opprobrium as “racist” and “anti-Semite.”  Tread warily: you may live with the consequences for a long time.

Please follow and like us: