- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
This is a comment to both Ms. Walsh's article and your article. You both seem reluctant to call a spade a spade. Donohue and the Right-Wing do want to silence women, especially feminists. He exudes hostility to women and this is apparent in his writings, pronouncements, and actions. The only women safe from the Right are the ones standing for protection in the shadows of the men of the Right, safe from their vitreol. And Ms. Walsh still seems to think that Dean actually screamed. I am often disappointed when I read articles by women on this site, because I expect more I suppose at this late date in the evolution of the assault of the Right on Liberalism and on womens rights (we can't depend on men to defend our rights, they very often don't). I regret the pink of Broadsheet and we need a really first-rate thinker in that department. We're often too nice, too tentative, or at turns too snarky. (On the other hand, we don't need the Camille Paglias on this site. The Left should offer venues for serious, fair minded people to discuss ideas, but choose wisely, not with an eye for the splash, snark effect. She muddies the waters. Really, what has she ever said or written of any usefulness?) We need a fair assessment of all the theads of an issue, but don't go all wishy washy in the end. We shouldn't go all teary just because a politician tugs at our emotions at a political convention. The late Walter Karp admonished us to, and I paraphrase, not to just listen to what the politicians say, but to watch what they do. Obama and all the rest come up short, thus far. Again, the Right needs to silence women. That is practically the whole point of the Right. Stand by your original comments in your blogs, Ms. Marcotte and Ms. McEwan and say why (don't we understand yet the history of the Right and of orthodoxy vis-a-vis women and other "lesser" beings? Don't we understand yet the ways in which the Right uses religion and the history of the RCChurch and women?) On the other hand, I would rather read in-depth analysis, irony, parody, satire than snarky remarks. In the end, it seems that neither you Ms. Marcotte nor Ms. McEwan stood up to these bullies, and it goes without saying therefore that Edwards too loses in my estimation. Why not publish the comments of these people? It seems they were so dreadful that Ms. McEwan, based on her piece elsewhere, feared for her life and that of her family. We need to know what they write and read for ourselves the hatred they have for women. Bullies are not tamed by acquiescing to them and the research shows that it is the bullies who are sadly in the end admired for their strength. It doesn't matter that they lie. Ms. Walsh never seems to comprehend the ugly heart of the matter. Here's a definition of liberalism with which you may be familiar, offered by Fritz Stern in his book, The Failure of Illiberalism: Essays on the Political Culture of Modern Germany, and again I paraphrase: Liberalism is the institutionalization of decency. We should be analyzing our politicians and their programs and the products of our culture with that in mind. Defending Liberalism and allowing it to take hold in a world whose heart is most often with the authoritarian bullies, means we must defend human rights, and that means the right of half the human race to speak and to be heard. And, I'd like to see side-by-side comparisons of the pronouncements/programs of the politicians on this site and indepth discussion of the assault on Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. Sadly I don't believe she is a Liberal--indeed are any of them Liberals? There's no proof Obama is one. They are all imperialists and corporatists, it seems.
