[The following, by Barry Rubin, is crossposted from The Rubin Report. His point, that NPR has now stepped over a line in enforcing political correctness even among its ostensible allies on the Left, is well taken. There are two related posts at Power Line. Read the whole things, but here are a couple of snips: A word from Jeff Jacoby - "...Before NPR's disgraceful treatment of Juan Williams, there was NPR's disgraceful treatment of Steven Emerson, one of the world's foremost experts on the threat from Islamist terrorism. In 1998 I learned that NPR -- in response to pressure from Islamist extremists -- had blackballed Emerson from appearing on its airwaves..." and A word from Katherine Kersten - "...At one point, I wrote a commentary about affirmative action; it focused in part onAmerica in Black and White -- Stephan and Abby Thernstrom's then-new book on the subject. Abby told me that the piece would be the kiss of death for me, and I dismissed her warning. But it was accurate..."]

The firing of Juan Williams by NPR is important for a dozen reasons--violation of free speech; a demonstration of NPR's leftist bias; Political (In)Correctness run wild; an insanely ridiculous example of the inability to deal with Islamism, and so on.

But there's one aspect that has not been addressed. The attack on Williams is the first big leftist attack designed to demonize, destroy, and silence a certified liberal. Well, perhaps not the first ever but the first really understood and publicized one.

Up until now, of course, conservatives have been often demonized and, given liberal suspicion of that side of the political spectrum, many liberals have believed it, failing to insist on fair play. Ridicule Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or others, and moderate, traditional liberals will accept it without checking the quotes, listening to the responses, and demanding accuracy. If someone is being wrong, silly, or racist, say so. But first check it out to make sure that's true.

Such caution and care is rare nowadays. A very sober, moderate liberal friend, for example, told me he'd heard that Glenn Beck called for armed insurrection. Anyone who actually listens to Beck (as I have in my research project on the American conservative movement) knows the reverse is true, as he frequently speaks against violence. Whether or not you agree with someone, the same values of research, documentation, and fairness should prevail.

Up until now, however, a lot of people have been happy to see those they didn't like being bashed--fairly or otherwise--without asking too many questions. The same standards of accuracy and fairness should be applied to everyone. Then if you hear that someone said or did something outrageous you know that it's true and not just a smear.

Yet these are precisely the qualities that have declined as all too much of academia and journalism have turned into partisan propaganda rather than a struggle for objectivity and accuracy in the search for truth. Western society depends on this kind of open discussion and reliable watchdog institutions to preserve democracy, come up with the best possible ideas, and maintain civility.

But now due to ideology and arrogance, the left-pretending-to-be-liberals has gone too far. People who have swallowed all of the often-false claims about conservatives--their ideological and political rivals--start to ask questions. Up until now, the majority of moderate liberals have said, in effect, that it didn't matter if "bad" people were treated unfairly.

An analogy here is the way that Republicans and conservatives were generally tolerant toward McCarthyism in the early 1950s when it went after the Truman Administration and liberals, until the senator went after the U.S. army in 1954, the respected General George Marshall, and even President Dwight Eisenhower himself, in a way that exposed his recklessness and the fact that anyone could be accused of treason. The only thing worse than a witch hunt is a witch hunt being cynically manipulated to intimidate large social groups, open discussion generally, and courageous individuals.

Today, one cannot help but once again hear the echoes of Martin Niemoller's famous poem, which ends, "Then they came for me/and by that time no one was left to speak up." They may well laugh when they hear Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, who has been smeared, whatever her very real shortcomings, say, "I'm you." But for real liberals, Juan Williams does fit that description.

Here's how the liberal media critic Howard Kurtz put it:

"This was a blunder of enormous proportions. Even many liberals--Donna Brazile, Joan Walsh, Whoopi Goldberg--are castigating National Public Radio for throwing Williams overboard....His firing has backfired...making Williams a symbol of liberal intolerance--on the very day NPR announced a grant from George Soros that it never should have accepted."

But that's not all! Kurtz criticized NPR for accepting Soros money and criticized the New York Times for--as it all too frequently does--twisting a story ideologically and leaving out key elements for partisan purpose:

"Yesterday was the day that NPR announced a new grant--$1.8 million from liberal philanthropist George Soros to hire 100 new reporters. No news organization should accept that kind of check from a committed ideologue of any stripe. Even if every journalist hired with the cash from Soros' foundation is fair and balanced, to coin a phrase, the perception is terrible. (This New York Times story didn't even mention Soros' liberal views. The guy just gave a million bucks to [the left-wing site] Media Matters. Hello?)"

Incidentally, the problem isn't just that Soros is an "ideologue" but also that he is a controversial person who might actually be subject to journalistic investigation, as well as regular news coverage, himself. This also raises the question of Soros buying uncritical or positive media coverage for himself. But back to Williams.

The closer one examines the Williams' incident the more horrifying it is. For example, in an interview, Vivian Schiller, the NPR official who fired Williams cited, as one of his previous offenses that should have gotten him fired, that Williams made fun of Michelle Obama, calling her Stokely Carmichael in a dress. She also suggested that Williams should not speak publicly about his views but confine them to conversations with his psychiatrist, thus unintentionally pointing out that NPR officials want actively to stifle free speech, even in other news media. In other remarks, NPR official statements said that Williams had violated the network's political "line," thus admitting that this tax-supported station is an ideological political organ.

On top of this, Williams is one of America's most seasoned, respected, and articulate African-American journalists. So charges of racism are not going to stick here. He is also a powerful spokesman for reasonable, moderate, non-radical liberal viewpoints. If he has to go work for Fox to voice them, that's a message in itself.

One can hear such points being made often in the Washington Post and suddenly there are more and more journalists who are fed up with having to act like partisan lap-dogs. But where are the moderate liberal, anti-radical blogs, outspoken intellectuals, and mass media saying that they don't think either Barack Obama or Sarah Palin are the best choices for America? Or that patriotism and a strong foreign policy should not be the monopoly of the right? Or that the size of government, level of spending, and extent of taxes should be limited in order to get out of this recession but they have their own priorities and ideas for how to do this?

Make no mistake, the Williams case is a landmark in getting real liberals to realize the extent that their institutions have been taken over by the far left, which has used this power to trash professional ethics and transform entertainment, educational, and media institutions into organs of lies and indoctrination. Coupled with the coming Democratic defeats at the polls, it reminds real, moderate liberals that being pushed too far to the left is suicidal. None of them are safe, as intellectuals or as politicians from attack and unemployment, respectively.

This is not mainly a liberals versus conservatives battle, it is a struggle between the far left--sometimes allied but always soft regarding radical anti-American forces abroad--against both real liberals and non-extremist conservatives. If radical forces abroad are going to be countered and defeated, this battle is going to have to be ought, too. The Williams' case defines the issues precisely.