Letters to the Editor
jwr_12
Published Letters: 149 Editor's Choice: 45
-
Good people but for bad leaders?
[Read the article: How to turn white evangelicals into Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While there are a number of "Democrats Need to Appeal to Evangelicals: And Here's How" books out there--and I'm sure they sell well, as it seems to be a story various people like to read--I have to say I keep coming away from descriptions of them with a sour taste in my mouth.
Almost inevitably, one implication of these books seems to be that "people of faith" (and other such apologetic euphemisms) wandered into an alliance with the Republican right because of poor leadership on the Democratic side, who were a little too absolutist on that whole abortion thing.
So let me get this straight: the reason why scads of self-identified evangelical voters found themselves drawn to the bilk the poor, celebrate earthly success, march in lockstep beneath the banner of patriotism, authoritarian GOP that we know and love today is because they felt a little put off by those who stridently affirmed womens' right to choose (as opposed to saying "I don't approve of abortion personally, but...")?
I guess this book seems to do a little dance around what those of us who aren't "people of faith" find most repugnant about mega-church evangelical culture: that far from displaying the moral behavior characteristic of true spirituality ('ye shall know it by its fruits' and all), what it shows instead is a love for earthly power, materialism, and busy-body self-righteousness that's quite far from, say, Christian humility.
So while it may be a mental relief to be an evangelical and realize, "hey, we're not all authoritarians!", I still wonder if there isn't some more somber mirror-gazing needed. "People of faith" didn't just run away from Gloria Steinem; they ran towards George Bush, and supported him through one of the ugliest periods in American history.
-
I agree with Jordon
[Read the article: Tucker Carlson unintentionally reveals the role of the American press]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]With all due respect--and acknowledging Peev's right to publish what was said--I think she erred in publishing it. Not because the press's access to "the powerful" will now be compromised--I think that argument's a heap of trash for all the reasons Glenn has given--but because this is a classic example of the press taking a minor but sellable issue over things that should be the substance of our politics.
Glenn asks if it isn't news that the adviser of one campaign calls Hillary Clinton a monster. It's news to the extent that our blow-dried and salacious press will make it news; but is it news in the sense that it is surprising, or relevant to the decisions facing America?
I mean, come on, who doesn't think that in their hearts the advisers of both sides have come to a venomous view of each other, as such tough competitors always will? Who thinks that that has any long term significance for who will make a better president, when the race is over?
I suppose you could argue that it's a weakness in a campaign to have a top adviser who, however smart, can lose focus like that. But are we so intolerant of human weakness--so confident that there are armies of talented people like S. Power who in addition to all her many strengths also will not have a moment of weakness and say something stupid--that we can afford to have our politics dominated by what is, in essence, unsurprising gossip?
Let's face it: the world would grind to a halt if we all spent our time on this kind of petty insult. To the extent that Peev is trying to sell papers, I understand her choice. To the extent that she's trying to be the kind of independent, inquisitive, public-minded journalist more usually celebrated on this blog, I don't think she made the right choice. And given that commercial motives will dominate journalism completely unless the public objects, now and then, and calls for a little self-editing from journalists (*not* in deference to power, but out of respect for their responsibilities for the quality of public discourse)--to that extent, I think Peev deserves a little flack. Just as, by the way, when Russert et. al. go off about $400 haircuts.
What I suspect, however, is that she was perhaps naive about how the AMERICAN press would play this kind of salacious crap. In Britain, people are always calling eachother monsters. It's only here we have the Puritan self-righteousness that fans such remarks into tempests that, in turn, dominate our politics even as real issues burn without comment. I doubt she expected this remark would generate a firestorm.
-
@ Kitt
[Read the article: Tucker Carlson unintentionally reveals the role of the American press]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You say, in reply to my post, that you're glad that Ms. Peev did not "usurp" your right to have an opinion. Because she duly reported that Power called Clinton a "monster", you get to decide what you think about that.
I guess that's true. But I guess the field is so cluttered with trivial issues like this one I'm sorry to see another one added to the list--collectively plugging up the conversation.
Here's what the American people heard from the whole Edwards campaign: HAIRCUT, HAIRCUT,HAIRCUT,HAIRCUT,HAIRCUT,HAIRCUT,HAIRCUT,HAIRCUT,HAIRCUT,HAIRCUT,HAIRCUT,HAIRCUT,HAIRCUT
Now, no one usurped their "right" to make a decision about that haircut; but I'm not sure anyone really profited from that.
The point I guess is that no report is ever completely exhaustive; telling us one thing means leaving something else out; and by providing us with the "right" to judge this trivial issue, journalism has deprived us of the context, analysis, and so on we might need to make judgments on more substantive ones.
-
Good Meme
[Read the article: John McCain runs for George Bush's third term]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Though some have criticized the article's substance--and I have to confess I didn't get to the end--it seems to me the line "McCain is running for Bush's third term" wouldn't be a bad quote to hear from the mouth of a Democratic candidate.
Short, sharp, true, devastating.