The ITT List
Wednesday Dec 15, 2004 4:06 pm
Social Injustice
In Tom Frank's funny and chilling analysis of backlash in the heartland, What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, the author unpacks the conundrums of a political era in which people eschew their own economic interests to vote on "cultural" issues like abortion, gun control and stem-cell research. Of course, part of this discussion is about about language and historical revisionism. A disturbing tidbit:
On Saturday, the Washington Post examined President Bush's elusive chief speechwriter Michael Gerson's defense of the president's references to God.
This reminds me of another jaw-dropping quote I read earlier in the week from Eric Alterman's book What Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias and the News:
Have we ceded that much control over the discourse that these comparisons are possible? At least my horror was slightly tempered by Frank's and Alterman's humor. Alterman rejoins Kaylan's observation with a quote by Charles Pierce:
Anti-abortion leaders everywhere are found comparing themselves to abolitionists and civil rights leaders of the past--much to the civil rights leaders of the present. Mainstream historians of the movement also repeat the analogy, comparing the struggle over abortion to the controversy of the pre-Civil War years, with, presumably, the anti-abortion crusaders taking the role of abolitionists.
On Saturday, the Washington Post examined President Bush's elusive chief speechwriter Michael Gerson's defense of the president's references to God.
Some people, Gerson said, seem to think that all references to God should be banished from presidential speeches.
"As a writer, I think this attitude would flatten political rhetoric and make it less moving and interesting," he said. "But even more, I think the reality here is that scrubbing public discourse of religious ideas would remove one of the main sources of social justice in our history. Without an appeal to justice rooted in faith, there would be no abolition movement or civil rights movement or pro-life movement."
This reminds me of another jaw-dropping quote I read earlier in the week from Eric Alterman's book What Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias and the News:
[Melik Kaylan of The Wall Street Journal] compared [Ann] Coulter's alleged "humor" to that of Lenny Bruce, Angela Davis, and the Black Panthers.
Have we ceded that much control over the discourse that these comparisons are possible? At least my horror was slightly tempered by Frank's and Alterman's humor. Alterman rejoins Kaylan's observation with a quote by Charles Pierce:
Too bad, therefore, [Ann Coulter]... has yet to be "arrested and jailed for what she said (Lenny Bruce), prosecuted in federal court (Angela Davis), or shot to ribbons in her bed (the Black Panthers)."
12 comments ·
Please Login to Comment register a new account »
To participate in discussions, please register an account.
SAVE 53% OFF
Comments
They’re getting more support because they’re adept at pushing people’s emotional buttons with their words. If you’re against “the war” you must be a traitor who doesn’t give a damn about the troops. If you think there’s room for some form of abortion rights, you must be condoning infanticide. Against a tax cut? You must be a government shill. And the absolutist phrasing just sounds more vibrant and decisive than speaking about the several sides of an issue. They’ve been studying the psychology of rhetoric and the history of mass movements, apparently, and done their homework.
It can also be observed that if you are for the war (or Bush) you are stupid, ill educated or evil. It never ceases to amaze me at the foolish characterization of the “other” side.
Abortion is a very complicated issue with room for many views. Anyone who does not see the “other” side of the issue simply has shut down and stopped thinking deeply about abortion. It is a very grey issue, with nary a trace of black or white to be seen anywhere nearby. . .
It is easy to set up strawman viewpoints (as Kuya does above), but the truth is much more nuanced and interesting. It is not whether you are for or against (insert issue here) - rather it is how and why you have come to the conclusion that is interesting and part of the debate that should be happening. To reduce either side to trivial strawman arguments is to simply misunderstand that side, and probably your own as well.
Abortion and gay"marriage” are the more overt and noticeable divise issues . Little is noticed or at least mentioned about things like the polically correct bullshit that is pushed on people. You have these atheist scumbags who whine they are offended by Christamas and Christmas trees and things like that .These scrooge- Grinches (scrintches) go running to the ACLU and get that sterling and august orginaization to attcack the town or city and the towns get scared of having money exhtorted by these pricks and cave in.
Just like the flaming asshole in Colorado who refuses to stand for the pledge of alligiance because it dares have the word “God” in it- oh the humanity. This guy should be run out of the office and out of the country.
I mean thes idiots are attacking Christmas for cripes sakes. What happens when I say these dirtbags offend me and lots of other decent folks- do we get to not listen to them what do we get to do about them. Polical correctness is the absolute facism of the left and should not be tolerated by anyone.
In california one school district won’t even study the Constitution beacuse it has the word God in it. This PC madness is thankfully being stopped by rational people.
This just in: The surgeon general has determined that watching O’Reilly, Hannity and Coulter is a surefire deterrent to one’s ability to discern reality from blathering poppycock.
all right I’ll grant that O’reilly is a buttplug but Coulter is Right on the money when she takes on liberal hypocrisy and politically correct bullshit.
This just in: Redstate proves surgeon general’s findings.
It doesnt matter where you stand on certain issues the main thing is when we elect a president or supreme court judges they should interpid the law according to the constitution and not for one particular religious group you cant have one group speak for everone thats called taxation without representation. everone views on religion varies doesnt make one right or wrong except when gods words are taken and twisted to fit other peoples needs. Martin L King jr would have not approve of the christian right they are about exclusion not inclusion. we must get away with using religion as a means to bully people into voting or imposing our views on others after all this is a democracy. so if the man doesnt want to say the pledge of allegiance than thats his business, and save the prayers for school for sunday school there is a time and place for everything
To redstate: The Constitution doesn’t even mention a “Creator” much less “God”. It’s writers purposly created this document to form the framework of secular governance. See Article 6, Section 3 and the First Amendment.
Redstate IS George Bush…he shapes facts to fit his positions. Or simply overlooks them when they are not “convenient”.
He’s simply an idealogue.
Classic example of the pot calling the kettle black! Amusing. . . :)
Touche’
Oh, crap. He can’t be all that bad—he’s one of the few people on this, or any other, site who can correctly spell “hipocrysy”.
Merry Christmas, Happy Haukkah, Happy Kwanza, Merry Solstice, all of the above, or whatever the hell you’re calling it these days.
Peace.
——-