Just Noticing: Observations Of A Blogger
Posted by Michelle Moquin on November 17th, 2013
Good morning!
Every once in awhile I bring up how important it is to be responsible writer – meaning be clear about what you write, and take responsibility for what you write. This is especially important if you are a professional writer who is most likely getting paid for the written word.
Although I am not a professional writer, I try my best to be a responsible writer, making sure that I am clear in what I am saying so that my words are not misconstrued. And most time I probably…no, I know, I take more time than I should to post the words that I chose to post, but it is important to me as a writer that I am writing clearly.
I have made very few mistakes, been accountable for them and apologized for them. Although, I don’t think anyone has held them against me, I certainly still remember exactly what I wrote and regretted, and it is a strong reminder to keep my standards high and be mindful of how I express myself in the written word, especially when my emotions are charged over a particular subject.
However, when you are a professional writer it is your duty and responsibility as a writer to make sure that your written words say exactly what you mean to convey. Clear communication is key. Again, no one is perfect but you better darn well be close to it, if that is your job.
And then there are some professional writers who perhaps should think about another career. At least that is the feeling I get from reading this write from Think Progress.
“Just noticing…”
Even If Richard Cohen Isn’t Racist, He’s Incompetent
Richard Cohen’s “gag reflex” column is indefensible. So is his piece arguing that Trayvon Martin was “understandably suspected because he was black.” His claim that “[t]he first thing you should know about theso-called Steubenville Rape is that this was not a rape involving intercourse,” smacks of Todd Akin. And the fact that his employer described him as a “left-of-center presence” that liberals might consider “one of their own” raises serious questions about whether anyone at the Washington Post has actually met a liberal.
But even if none of these things were true. Even if he had never defended racism or suggested that rape is somehow Miley Cyrus’ fault, his work still falls far below what should be the standard at any major American newspaper. Cohen is a banal, milquetoast analyst who, by his own admission, cannot perform the most basic task his job requires.
Consider, for a moment, Cohen’s defense of his column claiming that “[p]eople with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering” the Mayor-elect of New York’s interracial family. Cohen claims that he did not intend these words to be racist — although they have widely been read as such — but he admits that his words did not accurately convey his meaning. “I could have picked a better word,” he told the Huffington Post, “but it didn’t ring any bells with anybody, it didn’t ring any bells with me.”
Richard Cohen is a professional writer. His job is to use words to convey meaning. That’s his only job. So even if we take Cohen at his word — that he did not intend to convey an offensive meaning and merely failed to understand that his words would be taken that way — his defense is actually a damning indictment of his own competence. If a recent college graduate submitted a writing sample to ThinkProgress that could reasonably be read to associate multiracial marriages with the gag reflex, we would not hire them for even an entry-level position.
To be fair, nearly every professional writer can cite a time when they made a word selection that they later regretted. Here’s a selection I made that I now regret. But Cohen’s offensive columns fit a pattern. If Cohen didn’t mean to suggest that racism against young black men is understandable, or that some rapes are less repugnant than others, then he lacks a basic fluency with the written language.
And even when Cohen’s columns are not odious, they are just as often trifle sweetened with obvious truths and outright inaccuracies.
If you excise the offensive passages from his most recent piece, the remainder of his argument is that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), who is perceived as a relatively moderate Republican, will not fare well against more outspoken social conservatives in the 2016 Iowa Caucuses. This is a claim that I happen to agree with, but that’s because it’s not a particular insightful observation. The last two Iowa GOP caucuses were won by Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, both of whom positioned themselves as insurgent, socially conservative alternatives to the candidates preferred by party elites. Republican Iowa caucus-goers like insurgent, socially conservative alternatives to the candidates preferred by party elites. Anyone who doesn’t know this probably shouldn’t be writing professionally about national politics.
Some of Cohen’s other columns offer such insights as Ted Cruz is good at getting media attention or Mitt Romney comes off as a patrician and not as a populist. These are, of course, true insights. But they aren’t exactly windows into the American soul.
Above all else, Cohen seems constitutionally incapable of probing deeply into a subject. Take his penultimate column in the lead-up to the 2012 election. Cohen starts with the uninteresting observation that President Obama’s reelection campaign offered a less ambitious policy agenda than his campaign in 2008, then he offers this indictment of the president:
[S]omewhere between the campaign and the White House itself, Obama got lost. It turned out he had no cause at all. Expanding health insurance was Hillary Clinton’s longtime goal, and even after Obama adopted it, he never argued for it with any fervor. In an unfairly mocked campaign speech, he promised to slow the rise of the oceans and begin to heal the planet. But when he took office, climate change was abandoned — too much trouble, too much opposition. His eloquence, it turned out, was reserved for campaigning.
Obama never espoused a cause bigger than his own political survival.
First of all, the idea that the President who pushed health reform for months after it was clear that he was paying a terrible political price for doing so “never espoused a cause bigger than his own political survival” is absurd on its face. There are many negative things that can and should be said about the White House’s tactics during the fight to enact Obamacare, but Barack Obama chose a difficult and politically dangerous fight and he saw it through to the end. Claiming otherwise is inaccurate.
And Cohen’s critique of Obama suffers from a much larger problem. No one can doubt that the President’s second campaign called for less sweeping reform than his first, but a better writer would have explored how this came to be so. In 2008, Barack Obama was a Washington newcomer, brimming with optimism and more than a little naive aboutjust how easily a political minority can obstruct his agenda, even if his party enjoyed commanding majorities in both houses of Congress. He spent the next four years living the irony that the most powerful man in the United States is often powerless in the face of a determined opposition. Obama didn’t pare down his ambitions because he believes in nothing. He did so because he now knows that if he’d promised sweeping change in 2012 then he’d be lying to the American people.
A better writer might have also criticized the constitutional underpinnings that render American majorities so powerless. Or they could have critiqued Obama for failing to turn swiftly to regulatory solutions after it became clear that his legislative agenda was stalling. Or they could have proposed an alternative agenda that Obama could have campaigned on without exaggerating the limited reach of the presidency. Richard Cohen, however, is not that writer. With a wealth of genuinely difficult questions he could have probed at the peak of his readership’s interest in politics and the presidency, he chose instead to write a column that boils down to ten uninteresting words: “President Obama wants a second term, but can he LEAD?”
I work with 33 very talented writers here at ThinkProgress. Literally every single one of them possesses more insight into American politics and policy than Richard Cohen. The same can be said about thousands of writers that would happily cut off their own foot if it meant the opportunity to have a regular column in the Washington Post.
If the Washington Post were Harvard, I would assume Cohen’s father donated a stadium to the university. How else can one explain his position at the top of a writing ecosystem that includes so many greater talents?
*****
Readers: Do you agree? Blog me.
ZL: Hey girl. What’s going on?
My comment to Liz, I found to be inappropriate so I deleted it.
Happy Sunday everyone!! Thanks for being here with me!
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:
Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129
Thank you for your loyal support!
All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2012
“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream
" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"
November 17th, 2013 at 7:19 pm
Liz, I don’t think HE went too far in his commentary, he eluded the punishment quite eloquently, the title of the YouTube video, while eye catching is just plain wrong & we all know I can’t stand SP but this is exactly what we rail about here. ALL women including the idiot GOP SP should not be featured under a title ‘shit in her mouth’ or ‘pissed down her throat’ if it were any other female we would all be outraged. She is an idiot, though I think she may have made the reference purposefully, any publicity is publicity including negative items, and it’s put her back in the spotlight (temporarily one can only hope).
Misch, I’m good, very busy making big changes (bring it on : ) & had a wild experience this weekend and thought if call you to chat about it, it’s been awhile. Let me know what day you might be available, only tomorrow and weds aft/eve are too booked up for me.
Luv, Zen Lill
November 18th, 2013 at 6:05 am
If Cohen is a racist, he will certainly do until one comes along.
November 18th, 2013 at 6:22 am
“TEA party racist” here- I’ll put my party up against your RACIST party anyday. Just because you get the majority of black voters does not mean they like you!LOLOL!!! Cut off their services and you will need to start running. Black people are in the Republican party because they are VALUED for themselves as INDIVIDUALS. They don’t need to be in the NAACP, or be in a labor union to get our attention. We love all black people regardless of their group affiliation. It was OUR PARTY that freed the slaves and your party that ENSLAVED THEM. It was your party that burned and lynched them and now your party that again ENSLAVES THEM. Black people if you want to be somebody someday to have dreams for yourself and your children to better your life and your child’s life to become who you would like to become then come on over to the Republican party where we believe that you are valuable just as you are and we will help you succeed. If not, stay in your cities where the Democrats decide just how much control you have over your own life but don’t foget to vote for them because if you don’t your pittance may not come.
November 18th, 2013 at 6:24 am
“It’s not who I am. It’s not who I ever was…”
Do raciest and bigots not see themselves as such cuz they simply believe that we all think like they do, or is there a simpler explanation because this has always baffled the crap outta me?
November 18th, 2013 at 6:31 am
Ezra Klein had a brilliant retort to Cohen’s archaic racist idiocy in WaPo, specifically taking apart the “conventional” idea Cohen was looking to promote. It doesn’t represent American values today, so while it was conventional in the 50′s, 60 plus years later, it’s actually fringe ideology.
November 18th, 2013 at 6:31 am
“Used to be a lesbian” is also troubling in its ignorance.
November 18th, 2013 at 6:33 am
LIam, I guess all the pictures comparing the Obamas to monkeys come from Democrats? Keep dreaming. Your party is dead in the water.
November 18th, 2013 at 6:34 am
Bill, They don’t see themselves as being racist or bigoted because at their core, they think they’re right in prejudging entire groups of people based on race, background, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever.
November 18th, 2013 at 6:35 am
One reason I myself can’t let Richard Cohen off the hook comes from the many articles he’s written over the years, where he goes out of his way to excuse the racism of others — like in this last OpEd from him. And on more than a few occasions, has let slip his weird phobia about young black men.
November 18th, 2013 at 6:36 am
I am not sure I haven’t seen any. If I were going to compare the Obamas to anything or one it would be the “Sahily’s.” Because they are absolutely not QUALIFIED to be running this country. I am EMBARRASSED for every black person in this country. The “first black president” is a BUMBLING IDIOT.
November 18th, 2013 at 6:38 am
Becca:
Surely, you are doing exactly what you are accusing “they” for doing: prejuding an entire group based on their political orientation. Hence, you`re a bigot.
November 18th, 2013 at 6:41 am
Liam#10, actually the entire 43 previous could in one way or another fit your description of “a BUMBLING IDIOT.”
November 18th, 2013 at 6:42 am
Bergan, Don’t make me laugh. It’s not bigotry to object to racism. Shoo, troll.
November 18th, 2013 at 6:44 am
Becca, Oh, forgive me. I mistook you for giving a hand-job to your inner Übermensch. Of course, playing the role of the Untermensch in your mental play, I will comply and let myself be shooed away from liberal sight.
November 18th, 2013 at 6:47 am
Bergan, “People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York”
I think your buddy Richard Cohen did that first.
Aww, darn.
November 18th, 2013 at 6:48 am
Andy 15;
I am impressed with your lack of reasoning. Is it typical for liberals in the USA?
November 18th, 2013 at 6:49 am
Bergan#16, I appreciate your blubbering character attack in response to my valid point.
November 18th, 2013 at 6:49 am
So, being called ‘racist’ is hurtful. How about ‘woman hater’? Does that give Dickie Bird a twinge, too?
November 18th, 2013 at 6:50 am
Excellent post!
November 18th, 2013 at 6:52 am
BTW, I think Josh Marshall’s analysis is brilliant.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/e…
One paragraph out of a long must-read IMHO:
The issue isn’t that Cohen is a racist. It’s that he holds his position of vast influence while living in some older white man’s cocoon, liberalish in a way but not much, in which he’s either indifferent or unconcerned with the actual America around him and routinely jumps at the chance to normalize and legitimize retrograde views about race.
The problem with the article isn’t racism but inaccuracy, both descriptive and moral. And the complacent inaccuracy makes it worthy of criticism and contempt.
People who have physical revulsion at interracial couples aren’t “cultural conservatives”; they’re racists. These attitudes about race are not conventional. Most people recognize them as racist
and unacceptable in our society today.
November 18th, 2013 at 6:55 am
Cohen, of the liberal Washington Post, is an example of the racism allowed to infect the life of both political parties and the journalism of much of the mainstream press, the media owned by the rich. (The Washington Post was recently purchased by Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon for $250,000,000.00 in cash.)
The worse their racism is the more they continue to deny it. When Obama ran in 2008 his harshest attacks, in terms of racist remarks, came from other Democrats as well as Republicans. When the jury handed down the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case the press and politicians, including those who could have made things happen, wrung their hands and pretended there was nothing they could do.
Racism against people of color, bigotry, misogyny and immigrant bashing are woven into the very fabric of white American society and it’s political and ‘journalistic’ institutions and they won’t be ended until we win the fight for fundamental change.
November 18th, 2013 at 6:57 am
Becca:
“People who have physical revulsion at interracial couples aren’t “cultural conservatives”; they’re racists”
While one could argue that we can’t control how we feel about something, we sure as shit can control how we react to those feelings!
After all, how many racists do you know that don’t express their feelings about it in word, action or print?
Yeah, we all have our biases, but fortunately not a newspaper to tout them.
Among other things, this guy is an ignorant creep!
November 18th, 2013 at 6:58 am
Bill P. you think the Washington Post is liberal?
November 18th, 2013 at 6:59 am
Pete W. – It’s not, but there are a lot of lazy people who like to believe all media is liberal.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:01 am
Choe#24
All of the right wing media either are liberals or conservatives. The left wing media is tiny and mostly limited to the internet, where it’s growing apace with the growth of left wing groups and the emergent labor left.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:03 am
Pete W. #23;
Yes and no. It was very liberal but has been moving right. For instance they did a good job during Watergate but endorsed Obama, who’s to the right of Nixon, in both 2008 and 2012. That’s quite a drift to the right.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:04 am
Bill P.;
You’re assuming that only liberals wanted to take Nixon down. There’s a lot of evidence that the impetus to get him came from the other side and they let everyone, including liberals, think that the liberals did it.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:06 am
Bill P.#26 – It hasn’t been liberal in easily the last 20 years, taking down Nixon wasn’t about partisanship, it was about a major story that would bring them notoriety. If Nixon was a Democrat, they would have still run the story.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:07 am
Nicho, Don’t forget Nixon tried to put through government health care. It was a national system which would be funded in part by the federal government.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.or…
Nixon’s Plan For Health Reform, In His Own Words
kaiserhealthnews.org
No question he was a twisted, paranoid freak but I guess there is some good in everyone. Except Ted Cruz and Sister Palin they are just plain evil
November 18th, 2013 at 7:08 am
Choe#28;
Liberals and the liberal press are right wing. MSNBC is the mirror of Fox and the Democrats are mirrors of the Republicans. All are right wing, liberal or conservative, based on what their parties do, not what they say. Both bust unions, pander to the cults, service the rich and engage in endless, murderous wars of aggression.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:10 am
Nicho #27;
That sounds interesting. Do you know of any books that deal with it?
November 18th, 2013 at 7:11 am
Bill P.
Actually it seems many publications are moving Right…maybe it is a trend (hope not) or maybe it is like the democrats – who are also moving VERY right.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:13 am
Wilma, As the war between workers and the rich heats up social divisions generally I think we’ll see the internet become increasingly polarized.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:15 am
Wilma, Some, like the NY Times are a mixed bag. They supported the major Vietnam War escalation after Democrat LBJ lied about the Gulf of Ton-kin incident and they supported Bushes invasion and occupation of Iraq. In both cases, years later, after the deaths of hundreds of thousands on both side. they did an about face.
And NBC is also a mixed bag. They claim to be pro-LGBT gay and to support ENDA but then turn around and and support Putin’s vile attacks on our sisters and brothers in the RF.
Sooner or later all the media, even the most liberal, owned by the rich will turn against working people.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:18 am
Bill P. #34, I think Bill you have hit the nail on the head…in the end all media is brought and sold by the wealthy. Thankfully we still have some resources on the Internet…but I fear that is not long lived.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:19 am
Bill P.#34 – “It was very liberal” when? thirty years ago? forty?
November 18th, 2013 at 7:20 am
Pete W. I just told you.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:21 am
Bill P. you just handed me a plate of word salad. “yes and no” ridiculous.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:22 am
Pete W. #38, I reported the truth. The WP was liberal and now is moving right, so far right that they endorsed Obama – twice. Too bad if Democrats don’t want to accept it.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:23 am
Bill P. #39:
no, you did not report the truth:
“Cohen, of the liberal Washington Post”
“The WP was liberal”
November 18th, 2013 at 7:28 am
On a serious note, I have to ask who the hell at the Washington Post reviewed his article and said, …”good job Richard.. great article! Let’s publish this in the paper.”
I do have to also say that we progressives don’t really have much of a backbone though when it comes to fighting things such as this.
Dems should be out there in the news media calling for his resignation. Dems should also be out there fighting like hell whenever the GOP tries to do things that suppress votes, go after unions, etc… But we don’t. We just expect Americans to see the lies by the GOP. (We give too much credit to many Americans for being able to discern the truth.)
As another example, I can go to just about any news source and see Americans on claiming crazy shit about how ObamaCare is going to hurt them… even though when in reality, it is going to help them. Yet, where is Obama and others fighting back? I read that 50,000 people have signed up for ObamaCare so far. Why not get a few dozen of those folks to go around the country and share their stories?
November 18th, 2013 at 7:30 am
Pete W.#40:
Maybe if you knew even a little history. “In the mid-1970s, conservatives called the newspaper “Pravda on the Potomac” because of its perceived left-wing bias in both reporting and editorials.[38]
Since then, the appellation has been used by both liberal and conservative critics of the newspaper.[39][40] In 1963, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover reportedly told President Lyndon B. Johnson, “I don’t have much influence with The Post because I frankly don’t read it. I view it like the Daily Worker.” wiki
November 18th, 2013 at 7:32 am
Chris;
Dems are too lazy. they just want to get re-elected and collect their weekly bag of money from the lobbyists. You can throw shit balls at the GOP but I have to tell you they all get out and carry the talking points. There isn’t one who hasn’t memorized the party line. Dems don’t like getting their fingers dirty.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:33 am
Bill P.#42, gosh, I wish I knew history.
gosh, I wish I understood what tenses were.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:34 am
Pete W.
The “Washington Post” used to be liberal because American right-wingers used to call it liberal! That ought to give you some notion of Bill’s intellectual honesty.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:35 am
Mona, Liberals are right wingers. The Democrats the WP are both moving right.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:36 am
Mona, in regards to Bill P. unfortunately, your assessment is overly kind.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:38 am
Mona#45
It was liberal but now it endorses right winger like Obama and is moving right, just like Obama. ‘On March 26, 2007, Chris Matthews said on his television program, “Well, The Washington Post is not the liberal newspaper it was, Congressman, let me tell you.
I have been reading it for years and it is a neocon newspaper.” wiki I agree with Mathews and not rightwingers who deny history and reality.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:39 am
Pete W. #44:
Maybe someday. If you try really, really hard.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:39 am
Bill P. at least in this thread I’ve learned to no longer engage you.
buh bye.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:40 am
Pete w. #50, Good idea, since I proved you wrong, as usual.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:42 am
Most GOP members really believe these things:
- Marriage is between one white Christian male and one white Christian female.
- Welfare needs to be eliminated because only lazy black people receive it.
- All latino people in US are Mexican and are probably here illegally.
- Puerto Ricans aren’t “real” Americans and therefore shouldn’t have same rights as Americans.
- Gays can’t reproduce and therefore want marriage so they can convert kids.
- Jews pretend to be white so they can marry our women and muddy up our race.
- God believes like we do and therefore whatever we do is justified by God.
- Jesus, son of a middle eastern Jewish mother, had pale white skin, blond hair and blue eyes
- We don’t spend enough money on our military cause everyone is our enemy.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:44 am
Chris#52:
Your description of the conservative opinion is as accurate as Joseph Goebbels description of jews. I`m sure it helps you uphold a liberal mind-set. Don`t stop producing these prejudices, you might have doubt about your world-view otherwise. In turn that doubt would give you a crisis of identity.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:46 am
Chris#52 – In short (just as in every other wingnut country), minorities shouldn’t get benefits because the majority hates playing fair; it’s too expensive.
They also need someone to blame to avoid infighting. And you know if the majority weren’t white Catholics, they would still hate immigrants, gypsies, religious minorities or whatever other vagrants “ruin the country.” Whatever makes them feel better about starving children, workers, and massive war$ to bring democracy to countries sitting on money…
Spoiler: the majority always wins; they know they’ll win as long as the minorities are under-represented. They just have to numb their consciences to feel okay with it. Case in point: “I’m not a racist…”
November 18th, 2013 at 7:47 am
Chris#52;
“- Jesus, son of a middle eastern Jewish mother, had pale white skin, blond hair and blue eyes”
Of course he did! It was a Christmas Miracle that God made happen! Because God himself is male, caucasian, had blond hair and blue eyes! We all know that a supreme being’s genes overpower a lowly human female!
‘Cause that’s the way Si-ense works :)
November 18th, 2013 at 7:50 am
“To cultural conservatives, this doesn’t look like their country at all.” Only because they’re clinging to what they think their country should look like — white, Christian, heterosexual, sexist — and are stubbornly, vehemently, denying the reality of what OUR country actually does look like.
Really that’s what it comes down to. All the talk of “convention” and the “mainstream” versus the “avant-garde”–as though one’s race or sexuality were just a modish vagary of fashion like a taste for prog rock or French New Wave films–is mere euphemism for this plain truth: “cultural conservatives” don’t recognize anyone who isn’t a white Christian bigot as truly American.
What I find particularly ironic is that such Bible-thumping right-wingers claim to be inspired–inspired as no other people on Earth have ever been inspired–by universal truths that should transcend all the synthetic boundaries that we draw to separate humans into categories.
Surely the news (the “good news, if I may make so bold) that we are all brothers and sisters, fellow children of the same God, should tell us how silly it is to make a big deal out of relatively trivial and accidental differences in skin color or language or sexual identity? Surely the fuss over such differences should seem a petty, mortal concern in the face of the great message of divine unity?
Of course that’s not how it really works. Those who thump their Bibles loudest also wear on their sleeves most proudly their obsession with such trivial matters–not just about whether your skin’s the correct color or whether you’re sexually attracted to the correct people or whether you speak the correct language, but whether you like the correct music or read the correct books or enjoy the correct sporting events.
Seriously, is there any significant culture or community in the United States more narrow-minded, fanatical about imposing a particular notion of social decorum in all areas of life, than the right-wing Christians?
I don’t care about their “conventions”. They’re stupid and straitjacketed and arbitrary and the sooner their “conventions” are thrown into the rubbish-tip of history the happier I’ll be. Insofar as the abstract concept that we call America has any meaning left at all it’s got nothing to do with their “conventions”.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:52 am
Becca,
You need to add an ‘H’ to make that George H. W. Bush and his Willie Horton ads.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:53 am
Wow, Michelle when your fans get it going. How about this for participation Howie? Me, I’m always happy to see Cohen called out on his racism.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:54 am
Becca:
Becca, thanks for scooping the thoughts out of my brain and putting them into rational order :)
I only have one more thing to add: People like Richard Cohen are dinosaurs, and like the dinosaurs, they will be extinct at some point in the future. Younger people don’t think the way this fool does. Their idea of normal is mostly exactly the opposite of his.
As far as the gag reflex goes, younger people and those who share an enlightened opinion of humanity have to suppress theirs when Richard Cohen puts pen to paper.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:56 am
The GOP are dinosaurs but while they struggle in the death throws of their party, they are inflicting tremendous damage on this country.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:59 am
Fred#59:
Thanks. (And thanks everyone in the previous comments — I’m grateful for the positive feedback.)
I’ve been thinking hard about why Cohen’s op-ed struck me as it did, and have concluded it has to do with his assumptions about people’s presumed reactions to seeing an interracial couple.
Don’t get me wrong: There’s still plenty of racism and a plague of racists in America. In some parts, you wouldn’t have to look very hard at all to find those who object (possibly vehemently) to the idea of interracial marriage. (Or same sex marriage for that matter… or any quality other than what is deemed traditional and ‘normal’.)
Yet as you say, the young folks are changing quite rapidly with their attitudes towards acceptance and inclusion. I mean, there’s a difference between seeing something you’ve never experienced before and experiencing “fear and loathing” (as their parents and grandparents might) versus “wonder and fascination” (as these more open-minded youngsters seem increasingly inclined to do).
But that term Cohen used — “conventional views” — just leaped out and grabbed me by the throat. In a mere two words (coupled with “suppress a gag reflex”) he took virulent racism and (to my mind) quite literally made it the accepted, preferred norm. And if there was any doubt, he kept hammering that home by referring to racial tolerance and acceptance as unconventional, ‘avant-garde,’ and connotatively abnormal.
I also felt the concern trolling on the part of the GOP — on issues like gov’t expansion, immigration, and religion, all areas where their positions and hypocrisies are always quite clear — to have been icing on the cake.
November 18th, 2013 at 8:00 am
I must repress a gag reflex whenever considering Richard Cohen.
November 18th, 2013 at 8:02 am
One thing that really upsets me is when they say doesn’t look anything “like their country”. It is NOT their country – it is OUR country…all of ours, the men, women, asian, black, muslin, jewish, gay, straight, transgendered, just plain confused I have no idea what I think or believe, republican, democrat, socialist, communist and even anarchist.
I am so tired of being called names by the other side, being accused of not be a patriot because I don’t agree with THEM, or go to THEIR church, or sleep with the GENDER they decide is right for me.
I want them all to get over their ugly little selves, move into the 21st century – kiss their moms and thank them for loving them even though they are hateful little pricks…and be nice. Is that asking too much?
November 18th, 2013 at 8:03 am
The right-wing monologue always involves nationalism and scapegoating. Look at Russia today, and countless other countries that have suffered right-wing governments.
November 18th, 2013 at 8:07 am
Well…I’d not wanted to say anything about this really because I respect Becca tremendously and I know that different writers have different rhetorical styles, but I truly dislike the “line by line” style.
I love it when Anonz used it when he first had this tete a tete with Zen Lill. (I think they make a marvelous couple by the way) Of course now that Michelle is free, there could be some two or three ways happening.
Oh, and not to forget Robert, TM, now that one would also give both ZL and Michelle a run for their intellectual money.
The technique all there use has been called “fisking” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F… ) because it was a favorite technique of right-wing polemicists when they wanted to tear apart one of Robert Fisk’s pieces in the Independent, but I’ve seen the technique as far back as 1992 or 1993 when I was following Usenet groups.
November 18th, 2013 at 8:11 am
I agree Brittany, But where are they? I also miss Social Butterfly. She has a sharp wit and cutting sense of humor.
November 18th, 2013 at 8:12 am
I have to admit it does make some sense here. The difficulty in criticizing writing like Cohen’s–indeed in criticizing a great deal of political rhetoric these days–is that you almost do have to deconstruct it word by word, phrase by phrase. Words and phrases don’t mean what they seem to mean on the surface.
Maybe I’m coming at this the wrong way. Maybe writing a response to a piece like Cohen’s is like translating an Aristophanes play: almost every other word you have to stop, insert a footnote and explain just what the particular reference or joke was being made with this particular choice of words.
November 18th, 2013 at 8:14 am
In my department at work, there are four heterosexually married people. And all four are one half of an interracial marriage. There are also one single traight male, one single straight female and one lesbian. So I guess we would really make Cohen puke (except maybe the two straight folks).
November 18th, 2013 at 8:16 am
I just love reading your blogs Michelle. Your fans are so educated and they give Awesome analysis!
Thanks
November 18th, 2013 at 8:18 am
I find it liberating and easier on the nerves not to get worked up about things that don’t matter to me and aren’t any of my business, such as who marries who or whom you run into while shopping.
Working one’s self into a lather about these things as they detract from living a happy life and getting ahead at work. Yet some have their prejudices so ingrained they have a hard time containing them.
I remember years ago reading about an incident at the Blue Angel Restaurant on Chicago’s far northwest side. Then-Mayor Harold Washington, following giving a speech at some civic group, stopped for lunch with three aides.
Some old lady called over the owner and demanded that he throw out Washington and his aides, saying she would never eat in a restaurant that allowed (N-word). The owner explained that he was honored to have the mayor dine at his place.
So the old lady vocally left the restaurant (and refused to pay her check) saying she would never eat there again. My response then was who did the lady think she was?
But then, who do the people Cohen described think they are to tell other people how to live their lives based on their racist beliefs?
November 18th, 2013 at 8:20 am
You forgot Newt Gingrich’s “food stamp president” which didn’t raise an eyebrow in the Republican event where he said it. And of course half the comments on any news site that attracts right wingers. (“Obammy” etc.).
And also of course those tasteful signs at teabagger rallyes of Obama with a bone in his nose or whatever. Actually the whole right wing unprecedented public disrespect for Obama from “You lie!” on down.
Or Romney campaign commercials showing a bunch of all white hard working Americans. I don’t remember the whole thing, just that it was all racist.
Those were just a few off the top of my head in about a minute. I’m sure everyone here has thought of many more instances of current Republican racism.
November 18th, 2013 at 8:23 am
I have never believed people who claim an “ick” factor when discussing either same-sex couples or interracial couples. You may call me cynical, but I think such people are misrepresenting themselves.
I don’t think bigots regard same-sex or interracial couples as gross or unattractive; I think that bigots resent them. That’s right. I don’t think bigots are expressing disgust on aesthetic grounds; I think they’re expressing resentment.
As proof, look at the studies showing that self-identified homophobes are most often aroused by same-sex pornography. I know that people have gotten very huffy in the past when I state that someone is misrepresenting themselves and disguising their true opinions, but I’m going to stand my ground.
In the case of Richard Cohen and his “gag reflex” concerning interracial couples, I think he’s deliberately misleading us. I think his true motivation is that he resents the passing of racial barriers in American society.
Would Richard Cohen gag if he were watching hetero pornography involving people of different races? I really don’t think so, hence my claim that he’s misrepresenting himself and disguising his genuine motives.
As a second example, did Southern men who owned plantations object to sexual/romantic liaisons with African-American women on aesthetic grounds, or were they just hypocrites? Clearly, they were just hypocrites, as we can see by the significant percentage of African-Americans with partial white ancestry.
People sometimes react to my attitude with outrage, but I think you know me well enough by now, Becca, to know that I find such outrage more entertaining than anything else. Huffy responses are always welcome. LOL. We could start to compile a scrapbook of all such hypocritical responses and call it The Huffyton Post.
November 18th, 2013 at 8:24 am
Fletcher#70
Great, your nerves can be at rest while those of us on the receiving end of this bullcrap get no defense and solidarity from you who just can’t be bothered to give a rat’s butttt.
No thanks. I prefer my direct and overt enemies to “friends” like your ilk.
November 18th, 2013 at 8:25 am
Pat#73, I daresay the point sailed way over your head, friend.
November 18th, 2013 at 8:25 am
Pat, I don’t think that is what Fletcher was saying…I think he/she meant that he can’t understand why people who hold the beliefs such as the woman in the restaurant cares who sleeps with who, who eats at a table near her. I think he was speaking to how ingrained the hate is that they just can’t resist voicing their vile opinion.