Letters to the Editor
weeping for brunnhilde
Published Letters: 1150 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@ pyrrho
[Read the article: Obama "outraged" by Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Weep, I did make the mistake of attributing Dr. Rhyme’s words to you even though you seem to agree with them. Reading Dr. Rhyme’s words more carefully I would disagree with his lack of differentiation between white liberals/progressives and white conservatives in their thinking about race and ethnicity. Perhaps he is using Joan Walsh as a sole example of liberal thinking and chastising her by putting her in the same camp as conservatives."
Fair enough. That's kind of a quibble, perhaps, but a fair one. As I see it, the point here is that Joan (I believe) self-identifies as a liberal or at least is generally sympathetic to liberalism and that her treatment of this Wright story is not in keeping with core liberal values, such as respect for diversity, intellectual honesty/rigor, commitment to empathy over division, etc.
Her behavior, the role she's assumed in this dynamic and the way she's approached the story (to say nothing of her evaluation of the story's relevance and significance), is not in keeping with liberal values. We are not putting her in the camp of conservatives, but rather we're arguing her own behavior has done that.
"I believe you have expressed some naivety about what it is like to live in the Bible Belt amongst evangelicals and radical conservatives and I must tell you that it is a long way from Joan’s position."
I'm not comparing her to these people, at least, not primarily.
"Some of my friends would really make you weep with their lack of interest in any social reform except for lowering tax rates and deregulation. On the other hand, there are many liberal Democrats here as well of different racial backgrounds not to mention many of my family members."
Agreed. I'm not arguing that there don't exist liberal Democrats of different racial backgrounds. Far from it.
"Although all of them live comfortable upper middle class lives."
Nothing wrong with living comfortable upper middle class lives. We all come from somewhere and live somewhere and interact in our spheres.
Nothing wrong with that.
The problem comes in "normalizing" your own perspective and trying to apply that to other groups. Joan speaks from a seemingly neutral or objective point of view when in fact, the biases of her biography seem glaring to many of us.
This isn't her fault, but she seems unwilling to step outside of herself. This is her fault and constitutes a violation of the trust inherent in her position as journalist, editor, writer, etc.
"Believe me, I have some understanding of anger felt by those who have been persecuted. I have seen enough unfairness and prejudice in my life to have a grasp of the inequities existent in the world. And I realize that very little substantial social change comes without great storm and stress, many complacent Americans have little real feel for the huge social disruption caused by the American Revolution and the Civil War. One reason I want Obama to win the election is in the hope for change that will heal many wounds both domestically and abroad."
We're agreed here. I especially appreciate your invocation of complacency, because that's the core of my critique. Joan's writing reveals a complacency that I find fundamentally conservative. This isn't to say she's not liberal on other fronts, but on this one, she exemplifies a distinctly conservative orientation, philosophically speaking.
"Regardless of what you thought, dissecting Wright was important to me. Just as you are sensitive to racial discrimination, so am I. Whatever I feel, I still respect Mr.Wright’s freedom of speech and would not persecute him for his opinion even though I may have appeared to be doing so. Just as I respect your opinion."
I'm glad it was important to you. I'd never want to dismiss that. What's at issue here is how and why the dissection was important to you. What's at issue is the unexamined premises here. I take you at your word that it's important, but I'd ask you why. Then we can debate whether that interest is "appropriate" or useful in the context of our mutual pursuit of justice.
"Justice to me means fairness and respect for my fellow man. I would like to discuss this with you as well as compassion and virtue. Unfortunately, I am too tired to continue but will save this conversation for another day. Thanks for the response.
Another day, indeed.
Fairness and respect. Exactly. I believe Joan's treatment of WRight indicates a fundamental lack of fairness and respect.
Let's put it this way, if Joan's was the last word on Wright, and it was to be discovered by posterity, what kind of a source would she be?
Would she be a fair source or would she be a biased one?
There are methodologies of fairness one can apply and Joan seems to resist applying them. She often doesn't practice "due diligence," for instance. She also plays her cards awfully close to the vest.
"Just let me know what kind of wine you like."
I like a malbec well enough.
Ah, there I go, outing myself as a wine and cheese liberal whose highest score in bowling was like 80 or 100.
-
@ What Difference
[Read the article: Obama "outraged" by Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What can I say? I agree.
We're coming from the same general perspective, you and I.
I don't so much object to the fact that Joan is decidedly illiberal in this whole business, as the fact that this is even a question.
I'm willing to keep trying to make the case because I believe it needs to be made, but frankly, it's at times demoralizing that we've ceded so much ground over the years that we're at the point where "liberals" can't even recognize the basic dynamics at play for what they are.
It's almost like there's a vast right wing conspiracy at work.
Ironic, that.