Letters to the Editor

• Wow, Joan

  [Read the article: I was wrong about Wright]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Bravo.

  Do you realize that this is the most passionate, articulate and honest I've seen you be on the subject?

  Really, I'm amazed.

  "weeping, do you honestly think I haven't taken it to heart? Do you think I shrug off being called a racist repeatedly? Being told I'm afraid of black people, black men? That I just brush it off my shoulder?

  See, that's kind of my point, Joan, I have no idea. I only know what you write in your essays and to my eyes, there's no clear evidence of just what you make of all these charges and how your assimiliate them or reject them.

  You wrote one essay a couple back where you genuinely seemed to make more of an effort to be more thoughtful and less polemical, but since then you've reverted to bizarre, mostly hot-button polemic. So it's hard to know what to think. This is one of my points, you should make more of an effort to lay bare your premises and concerns (deep concerns, not superficial ones) etc.

  "I continue to write about this because I passionately believe that Wright is part of what's wrong with urban politics today, that if you want to get involved, you have to pay homage to people who preach paranoia, racial victimization and the unbearable whiteness of evil.

  Joan, this is a tremendous and consequential thesis. There's probably something to it. Maybe not, but it's worthy exploring, if our subject is "urban politics today."

  But don't fool around with this kind of stuff by giving it short-shrift. It's serious stuff that deserves serious argument, not the shallow and antagonistic polemic you afford it.

  I'm sorry Obama did so, even though I don't think he believes any of what Wright preached. He's better than that; that's what's so disturbing. But that's the choice he made, and now he's paying for it.

  Ok, I can sort of see what you mean here, but "he's better than that" is a value judgment depending on the validity of your thesis about Wright being symbolic of everything that's wrong with "urban politics today."

  So maybe you should put off the value judgments at least until your thesis has seen the light of day and been tested by argument. Isn't this what liberals believe in? Honest debate in the genuine search for truth, wherever it might be found?

  "Honestly, it's not immaterial to me. I happen not to believe this is just Karl Rove/Fox News propaganda. I've written about McCain's disgusting embrace of John Hagee, I've written about Clinton's shameful vote for the Iraq war and for Kyl-Lieberman. This was a bad choice on Obama's part, and he's having to answer for it."

  Those are other issues and I'm not concerned with them, myself. I'm concerned not only that you are dealing with Wright, but how you are dealing with it. It's not just about "balance," it's about something deeper than that. More like intellectual honesty. Your writing about Wright just isn't intellectually honest.

  I'm not saying that you're not honest, I'm saying your "argument" is not.

  "It's fine if we disagree about that. But it's ridiculous to call me a racist, or a Republican (not that I conflate them, I'm just asking for accuracy.)"

  I don't believe I've called you a Republican and I don't believe I've called you a racist.

  I avoid calling people "racist" because I think it's an unproductive word. I try to be very precise with my words and with terminology because I want them to mean something.

  I think I accused you of race-baiting. That's because that's what you're doing. You do this by discussing a racialized subject with no apparent regard for the elementary features of racism.

  I don't know what to say. The point isn't to call you names, nor is the point even that you're race-baiting.

  Frankly, the primary problem isn't the race-baiting, but the anti-intellectualism that leads to what is probably unconscious race-baiting.

  I don't know what to say, Joan, other than thank you for responding. That means something to me.

  I would also urge you to write an entire essay as passionate and articulate as what you wrote here, but developed some more so as to genuinely address your critics.

  Why don't you write an essay that responds to your many honest and thoughtful critics?

  Instead, you offered this latest essay that confirms what many of us see, which is that you do in fact just shrug it all off or worse, thrive on the controversy.

  Write an magnum opus, Joan, stepping back from the horse race and just articulating your vision, the central place from which your perspective comes, your core values, etc.

  Then we'd at least know where you're coming from.

  Don't you want that kind of a relationship with your readers?

  Permalink Monday, April 28, 2008 09:24 PM

• @ lateagain

  [Read the article: I was wrong about Wright]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Amen.

  Especially this: "Has it occurred to you that he genuinely sees some gray here? That there is some complexity in their relationship, in the pastor's value? Isn't complexity--the non-bumper sticker version of the truth--what we Democrats have been longing for?"

  Sound it from the rooftops.

  (It's nice to see you, btw, you're a breath of fresh air.)

  Permalink Monday, April 28, 2008 09:35 PM