The point was that no one should ever be compelled to eat shit, and that it should have been unthinkable that this happened to any human being--that by not comprehending that the enormity of such degradation, occurring to millions of people, over centuries, was nothing like people maybe having to pay a little more taxes--Sarah Palin was shrugging off that reality. She was, figuratively, if you will, shitting on the memory of people who died in chains, or from the lash, or were hunted down with dogs. She was belittling the suffering of families uprooted and torn apart, people kept in ignorance and shame, people whose existence from birth was one of bondage, hard labor, and pain.
He could have done it differently, but the thing he missed entirely is realizing that it's a mistake to try to penetrate that kind of lack of empathy at all. By trying to, momentarily, have her make the mental step into that place, where she was subject to Darby's Dose, he made her a victim.
She doesn't need his help to feel victimized. And she can't use the insight. All his "lesson" did was make many people mad at him. So he had to resign. This should serve as a good demonstration of how not to address a foolish thing said by someone whose business is saying those things. His business is not saying foolish things--or even wise things in a foolish way. Yes--that does sound like there are two sets of standards. It is what it is.
2 comments:
Greetings, Vixen.
I wanted to express my appreciation because you, at least, expressed disapproval after Martin Bashir suggested that someone should shit in Sarah Palin's mouth.
Frankly, very little was said about it in the popular media, even though it was newsworthy when you consider that it may have been one of the most vile human deprecations spoken on the public airways.
I fully realize that there are differences between those who see the world in terms of Milton Friedman and those who see the world in terms of John Kenneth Galbraith.
There are legitimate discussions to be held between those who favor Hayek and von Mises v. those who like Keynes and conceivably even Marx.
However, I would suggest that if we allow the political debate to degenerate to the point that Republicans finally feel driven to reply in kind, then we need to simply close down the public airways altogether and make sure that no one's children can ever be exposed to politics on either side.
Although I fully appreciate that you are an able champion for a leftist political and economic worldview, my impression is that you are not a kool-ade drinker like some of your colleagues. I can respect that.
-- Formerly Amherst
Thanks, Formerly Amherst:
I am not a great fan of incivility, this much is true. I think in the heat of debate, anyone can stoop to saying something they aren't proud of the next day, and I think it's decent of Bashir to realize he isn't proud of this thing and to move on.
At the end of the day, a political debate is just that: a debate. Some ideas are more worthy, they work better, they contribute more to the freedom and wellbeing of the people who, ultimately, we do our arguing on behalf of. Our opinions can differ, and they do, but when it gets ugly and personal, it muddies the points we're trying to make. It's a distraction.
If someone makes a point regarding the atrocity of human slavery that seems to belittle it, as in this case--there are many ways to disapprove without saying she herself should be degraded. Human dignity matters. I can't argue that it doesn't, whatever my biases. I may think it is right to take aim at Palin for making a miss in her analogy, but not the way he had.
Post a Comment