. . . liberalism hasn’t figured out a moral vocabulary that doesn’t depend on the fight against slavery and Jim Crow. I am amazed how, on every campus I go to, no matter what the subject, liberal kids — not to mention their professors and my debate partners — can only internalize and conceptualize arguments about political morality and action in relation to the black civil-rights narrative. That’s a hugely important narrative. But it is not a tesseract providing an infinite and invincible moral power to every claim under the sun.Read many academic history and Civil War blogs and you'll understand Goldberg's point. These folks tend to put most of their focus on an institution that died a well-deserved death 150 years ago and then construct all types of morality plays tied to their modern ideology in the grossest form of presentism you could ever imagine, while they simultaneously ignore (even support) one of the greatest moral tragedies of modern times.
It is mind-numbingly surreal. It is also why those who hold such illogical and irreconcilable views have so little credibility with me. Of course, since the inhabitants of the Ivory Towers are immersed in this perspective and ideology practically 24/7, it becomes difficult for them to "think outside the box." While loudly proclaiming the opposite, they are, in actuality, extremely narrow-minded, hypocritical and puckered, if you know what I mean.
While Goldberg is correct in stating that this narrative is not a "tesseract", it is certainly a "hammer". And when a hammer is the ONLY item in your toolbox, everything tends to look like a nail.
You can read all of Goldberg's article here at National Review.