They are saying that a respected publisher, St. Martin’s, colluded with me to produce a racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic book, and CNN, Fox News, C-SPAN, Fox Business News, and the 150 radio shows on which I appeared failed to detect its evil and helped to promote a moral atrocity.One sighs--clearly, MSNBC let this go on too long without saying a word. How did all these various persons and outlets fail to see the racism, anti-Semitism, and homophobia that has long been part and parcel of Buchanan's work? They didn't fail to see it--they failed to acknowledge it. Unfortunately, from time to time, racism, anti-Semitism, and homophobia have not just been culturally acceptable, but actually profitable in some circles. The news network in question has made the determination that Pat Buchanan's particular work product is not profitable for them to be associated with. A pretty good call, that.
If my book is racist and anti-Semitic, how did Sean Hannity, Erin Burnett, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Megyn Kelly, Lou Dobbs, and Ralph Nader miss that? How did Charles Payne, African-American host on Fox radio, who has interviewed me three times, fail to detect its racism? How did Michael Medved miss its anti-Semitism?
In a 2009 cover story in the Atlantic, “The End of White America?” from which my chapter title was taken, professor Hua Hsu revels in the passing of America’s white majority. At Portland State, President Clinton got a huge ovation when he told students that white Americans will be a minority in 2050. Is this writer alone forbidden to broach the subject?
That homosexual acts are unnatural and immoral has been doctrine in the Catholic Church for 2,000 years. Is it now hate speech to restate traditional Catholic beliefs?
Regarding the touchy subject of Buchanan's latest book and that comparison of his subject matter with that of others, I think the major difference is the assumption that a less-white America is necessarily a less-American America, as if non-whites are not able to carry out the ideals or appreciate the values of our democracy without the monitoring of a white majority. Regarding the claim that Buchanan merely restates Catholic beliefs regarding LGBT* people, the practice of one's beliefs are a private matter. Buchanan is welcome to practice not being gay since his church frowns on it, but this has very little to do with how anyone else needs to see things.
Buchanan is under the impression that he has not been given a "hearing" before this determination was made: did no one read his book? Has no one read any of his books, or columns, or blog-posts, nor listened to things he has said aloud, on the tv-machine, where people could hear? I am certainly not the first person, and will definitely not be the last, to trot out the old standby: Words mean things. If, for example, your words indicate that you think that President Obama is an affirmative action baby who isn't half so smart as all that, or that Sonia Sotomayor is a half-literate because she's Hispanic, you give away your game, don't you?
Enough. Pat Buchanan isn't "Blacklisted" in the least. He will still have outlets that will carry his particular version of parochial punditry. And how very curious to be such a free speech martyr-baiter when he's said such nice things about Senator McCarthy? There were many people who were deemed un-American and their careers suffered true hardship because of that grandstanding nonsense. My sympathy, it fails.
Good riddance. As limited as it may be.
No comments:
Post a Comment