Jeff Goldstein has been writing rather compelling arguments about why identity politics has such a corrosive impact on the political climate and how it perverts the debate, and I readily agree with him. Most recently, Jeff discussed, at length, the Michael Steele “Black Sambo” bit, and was ridiculed by some of our friends on the left:
Roy of Alicublog doesn’t like us white folk suggesting that when black folk whip Oreo cookies at other black folk, the thinking behind such a display of internecine racial bickering is not only vicious and cowardly, but dangerous, as well…
Once you get past Roy’s carefully cultivated technique of dismissing offhandedly with ironic quips what he considers to be frustratingly stupid wingnut blatherings —a rhetorical ploy that seems to go over well in the land of vacuous neo-hipsterism (BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!)—all you’re left with is this: Roy and many of his equally vulgar commenters believe that black racism against blacks is to be dealt with by blacks themselves—and that white folk, who clearly have no stake in the battle, need to mind their own business.
That this argument precisely makes my point about the dangers of identity politics—“racism” is no longer something that can be decided upon globally, but is rather something whose conditions are determined by warring factions within a particular identity group—is lost on Roy, who seems to follow Said, implicitly if not explicitly, by championing a form of identity politics that allows each identity group to make its own rules.
Such hardcore multiculturalism is at odds with the idea of American individualism, and—though self-satisfied progressives like Roy don’t like when we conservative racists point it out—with the idea of a society in which people are judged by the content of their character.
What is most disheartening about this is that recently, the right seems to be just as willing to play this sort of game- rather than rejecting identity politics, we find self-styled ‘conservatives’ accepting this line of thought, and engaging in ridiculous exercises such as demanding an apology from Bill Bennett, who should have ‘known better’ that his argument ad absurdum would be ‘portrayed’ as offensive and racist.
In fact, not only are conservatives not rejecting the game, some have decided they can play it better than the liberals. Oliver Willis finds Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy In Media engaging in a little recreational identity politics and cries “No Fair!”:
Cliff Kincaid from the right-wing AIM bias pimping operation is up on his haunches and braying:
In a blatant violation of journalistic ethics, Time magazine assigned a homosexual reporter, John Cloud, to write the recent Time cover story on homosexual teenagers but did not disclose his conflict of interest to its readers.
So I guess now in addition to bylines, reporters are going to be required to disclose their heterosexuality or homosexuality, depending on the subject of their stories.
Oliver is right that Cliff Kincaid is being foolish, and it really shouldn’t matter whether or not the author of the story is himself homosexual, nor should he have to disclose it. But Cliff Kincaid didn’t write the rules to this game- he is just playing along.
Maybe this incident will help people (in particular my friends on the left, but not exclusively) recognize why this brand of politics will lead to nothing but rancor and should end now. I sincerely doubt it.
John S.
I am utterly baffled.
John S.
Ah, nevermind…there was a password prompt and I thought this was a pun thread or something.
John S.
Jeff Goldstein’s writings in it of themselves have been rather compelling arguments as to why identity politics has such a corrosive impact on the political climate.
A great drinking game would be to count how many times he utters the term ‘lefty’ (or some variant) or uses the term ‘liberal/liberalism’ as a pejorative.
Nikki
Uh, John? I don’t get it. As a black woman, I feel that whatever beef we black folks have with Michael Steele is really none of you white folks business. And Bill Bennett was wrong. And Cliff Kincaid is an idiot.
So, what’s the problem?
John Cole
Nikki- Behave.
:)
demimondian
I think he argues that you certainly don’t need to care what we think — and, I would guess, thinks it is healthy that you don’t — but that we shouldn’t not comment on conflicts within the black community. His argument seems to be that they are our business, as we are your neighbors.
For my part, I agree that you shouldn’t care, and that in a perfect world, white folks should feel free to discuss dissent within the black community, as long as we don’t expect you to listen to us any more than you would listen to any other nosy neighbor.
ppGaz
Oh My God, I can’t believe you are bringing that up again.
Bill Fucking Bennett, arguably a candidate for Horse’s Ass of the Year.
John, John, John.
KC
I’m not smart enough to fully understand this issue. Is it anything like when Republicans claim Democrats are anti-Catholic, Italian, Hispanic, etc.?
p.lukasiak
personally, I think that there would be a whole lot less of the “oreo” comments coming from the black community if rich white conservatives weren’t constantly pushing the miniscule minority of blacks who agree with them in the faces of the rest of the black community.
Most black people I know don’t want rich white conservatives who don’t really give a flying fuck about black people telling black people how to behave….and paying other black people to publicly agree with them
APF
Most human beings I know don’t want anyone telling them what is an appropriate set of political beliefs to subscribe to, in order to legitimately belong to their racial, ethnic, etc group.
Matt
I’m curious how everyone would define identity politics.
John S.
This is a good start:
Nikki
Very, very true. So conversely, don’t you think that a party’s political operatives shouldn’t expect automatic support for its candidate to come from his/her racial, ethnic, etc., group, especially when the majority of that group doesn’t believe in that party’s values?
neil
…who seems to follow Said, implicitly if not explicitly, by championing a form of identity politics that allows each identity group to make its own rules.
See, _this_ is why we need to enshrine Islamic law in the constitution. Those non-Islamic identity groups will always keep thinking that they can make their own rules.
stickler
Ach, my head hurts from this thread. Whining about the corrosiveness of the political culture in 2005 is pointless. That horse done left the barn sometime before the impeachment of the last President for a blowjob.
I’m going to pour myself a beer and go back to the suds-and-kitties thread.
neil
I believe this is a much finer example of conservatives feeling they can play this game better than liberals:
and
MI
Yeah, hey, since you’ve brought up Bennett again, I thought I would throw something out there that crossed my mind during your original defense of him, but I never got around to posting. You came down hard on critics of his who said he should have known better, should have known how it would sound, be used, ect. I believe you even pointed out the creepy Orwellian nature of that kind of shit, all of which I agreed with. But what about Dick Durbin? In your defense of him, again which I agreed with, one of the points you drove home was that even though he didn’t say what his critics were accusing him of saying, he should have known how it would sound, how it would be used, ect, ect.
So how are these two situations different? Are you being inconsistent or am I splitting hairs?
I think you even did the same thing when a senator (can’t remember which, Hastert?) suggested that maybe rebuilding New Orleans might not be the best idea. In fact you often criticize people for having what I think you call a tin ear.
I swear to god I didn’t start off to bash you with this post, but it does seem like we need to determine whether we’re going to live in a world where we understand what people meant to say, even when it comes out wrong, and just live with that, or we’re going to pick everything apart and use their awkwardness against them. or CAN we have both?
I guess my main point, and I don’t mean to be an asshole, but I don’t think you’re a qualified ref in figuring this standard out…not that you ever claimed to be, so..
Matt
Mostly I was wondering whether anyone would consider the few hundred years that African-Americans existed in this country as second-class citizens to be “identity politics” practiced by the dominant white citizenry at the time. I believe that’s what Roy was hinting at, but didn’t bother actually explaining. That is, that white people engaged in and benefited from their own form of identity politics (i.e. institutionalized racism) for centuries, and therefore are viewed as lacking credibility when criticising identity politics as practiced by minorities in the last 30 or 40 years. I know that position presupposes agreement on many issues that we obviously don’t all agree on, but I think it’s what he was getting at.
That said, I agree with Jeff that the actions/remarks in question are abhorrent.
John Cole
The difference is simple. Durbin was making a comparison. Bennett was making a ridiculous argument to illustrate why you wouldn;t use a certain line of reasoning to justify certain policy decisions.
Two different animals.
Durbin- “If you did not know any better, you would think we were talking about X.”
Bennett- “You don’t use argument type X, because you could argue proposition Y, which we all agree is offensive, but an argument that would be valid form of argument type X.”
Two completely different situations, but I think I was on the right side defending both of them.
Good question, though. You don’t have to agree with the dsistinction, but I think there is a big one there.
Kimmitt
I think what MI is saying is that you seem to have said that Durbin should have known better, while Bennett shouldn’t’ve — that there is something of a double standard.
I’d reply that you view your place in the world as to be something of a contrarian conservative, so you’re going to gentle when calling out your allies but get jiggy with calling out your ideological opponents, which is only natural.
Besides which, we’re apparently operating a fucking gulag archipelago anyways, so the folks who jumped all over Durbin can take a flying leap at this point for all I care.
John Cole
Kimmitt- I thought I addressed that. Durbin was making a comparison, and should have known what was going to happen.
Bennett thought he was making a way out there comparison that was so outrageous everyone would recognize it as something he would never adovocate, so he had no reeason to’know better.’
MI
oops, duh, Hastert isn’t a senator, my bad.
Hmm, I wasn’t even thinking in terms of distinctions, or at least the ones you’re making. Perhaps I’m trying to be too black and white when this is really a grey area, but it seems to me that basically, both guys said something that wasn’t wrong in and of itself, but sounded wrong, both got attacked, not for what they said, but how it sounded, one guy you defended against that tactic, one guy you didn’t.
I’m not entirely sure the context of what they were talking about matters…well, it obviously matters to you, but from my point of view it seems almost irrevalent. I’ll have to think about this some more.
Matt
neil–agreed. The right hasn’t shied away from identity politics, especially those grounded in religion. Hell, practically the entire SoCon base is made up of self-identified persecuted Christians.
Brian
Some self-hating whitey in my law school class ran the old line that “Clarence Thomas isn’t really black because he doesn’t think like one.” I responded, “Ok. How are black people supposed to think?” He actually responded by asking me why I would ask such a racist question.
This is the problem with racial identity politics at its core. One thinks that if a certain minority doesn’t think in lockstep isn’t really a minority, and anyone who dares question that mindset is the real racist.
MI
“..Bennett thought he was making a way out there comparison that was so outrageous everyone would recognize it as..
Well, see, I could agree with that, but I’m still not sure how it changes what ultimately happened.
MI
More specifically, I’m not too concerned with the “they should or shouldn’t have known better” aspect of the discussion. I’m more focused on the similar reactions to their remarks. Maybe that’s where we’re missing each other..
p.lukasiak
Cole still doesn’t get it.
Bennett’s comparison assumed that by killing black fetuses, you could reduce the crime rate. In other words, Bennett believes that black fetuses are predisposed to criminality at a higher rate than other fetuses.
That’s using a racist assumption — it doesn’t matter if the assumption appeared as part of an absurdist argument, the assumption itself is still racist.
MI
At any rate, my favorite part of the whole Bennett fiasco was when someone pointed out that through all the noise, everyone missed the fact that Bennett’s use of that example actually proved wrong the point he was trying to make. I thought that was kind of funny.
Pb
I also agree that “identity politics has such a corrosive impact on the political climate and how it perverts the debate”.
I also think that your friends on the left are the most likely to listen and agree with this line of reasoning.
I think that’s in large part due to the blatant, shameless, and inexcusable exploitation of identity politics (and more) by the right over these past five years or more, in a disgusting show of moral and political putrescence not glimsed since The Red Scare, or before–similar in flavor to the vile exploitation that Sinclair Lewis wrote about in “It Can’t Happen Here“.
And I also think that Bill Bennett made some boneheaded comments that likely exposed his own bedrock, racist personal assumptions.
And that we’ll likely only agree on one or two of these points at most. :)
kl
I was just talking to Lucy Ramirez and she said the same thing.
rilkefan
“Cole still doesn’t get it.”
p.lukasiak still can’t do grade-school math. Or follow a complex argument.
On the other hand, John was making a comparison, and should have known what was going to happen. If I never hear Bennett’s name on this blog again, it’ll be too soon.
p.lukasiak
p.lukasiak still can’t do grade-school math. Or follow a complex argument.
I can do both. and, apparently unlike you, I can recognize when a complex argument contains a racist assumption.
DougJ
When is Kanye West going to apologize? Clearly, he is the most odious race-pimping demagogue of our era.
And what about Aaron Broussard, while we’re at it?
Perry Como
We are all Americans. Attempting to divide us is nothing more than class warfare. We love this country and the free market will prove our resolve.
rilkefan
No true statement is racist.
Perry Como
Race is man made concept.
Jcricket
Talk about playing identity politics. How many ethnic groups can you insult with one joke.
a
Nikki, as a white man, I feel that whatever beef we white folks have with John Kerry is really none of you black folks business.
Well that was offensive, wasn’t it?
How come your words were not?
John S.
Well, Adolf Hitler said:
This was (and sadly is) truth for many people. And yet, it is also incredibly racist. Therefore, I don’t think your notion stands up to the bullshit test.
BumperStickerist
–
Racial isn’t necessarily racist.
–
John S.
That makes for a nice Aryan Nation bumper sticker, but technically you are correct, since:
racial (adj)
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of race or races
2. Arising from or based on differences among human racial groups
racist (adj)
1. Based on racial intolerance
2. Discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion
racist (n)
1. Person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others
So racial may not always be racist, but racist is always racial. Regardless, what bearing does that have on whether or not true statements are never racist? I think the above definitions further prove the ridiculousness of such a statement.
ppGaz
That’s the bourbon (see other thread0 talking.
The fact is, racial differences are real. “Racist” is just a baloney word anyway, like “closure” and “irregardless.” But back to my point, which I will make up in a minute ….
Races are different from each other, and our brains are wired by nature to spot even the most minute differences between ourselves and other humans. And to act upon the discovery of those differences.
Since most of us (non Republicans, for example) have something like free choice available to us, we can choose how to respond.
Now, the R word is a word of management, of manipulation. It’s all about intent. Now we come to Bennett. Bennett is a complete ass, a fat pig of a man who presumes to tell other people what is right and wrong. When a fat pig of a man makes a contorted and grotesque argument, it’s only for one reason: He wants to get fatter, on your dime.
There you have it. Oh, and John Cole was wrong about Bennett the first time, and he is still wrong, but it was a clever trick to slide him into a thread all the way into November when everybody had forgotten the first time we had this arument.
Veeshir
Regardless, what bearing does that have on whether or not true statements are never racist? I think the above definitions further prove the ridiculousness of such a statement. Such concentrated stupidity.
How can a true statement be racist? The example above proves no such thing.
In order for that to be true, the Jewish youth would have to have “satanic joy”, the girl would have to be “unsuspecting”, his blood would have to defile her and he would further have to steal the girl from her people.
Which of those statements is true? C’mon, prove me wrong and defend any of those statements as true.
Merely noting that blacks make up a disproportionate number of professional athletes is truth, not racism. Especially if such a statement does not say that it’s because they’re black that it is so.
But then, I don’t expect you nitwits to understand the distinction.
ppGaz
Because “racist” is a subjective term. It means whatever you want it to mean.
“Discrimination” is a good example. Is discrimination a bad thing? Well, without it, your eye and brain would not be able to see anything. All sight is discrimination. The absence of it is all white, all black, or all grey, or a Jackson Pollock painting. Which is gatuitous and just illusrative, since I happen to like Pollock paintings.
Discrimination is about telling one thing from another. It’s one of the most important things your brain is equipped to do.
Speech is “racist” based on intent, not on interpretation.
Some would argue, Bennett’s remark had no racist intent, therefore since it is technically within the bounds of truth, it can’t be racist. The matter is subjective. In my case, I don’t believe Bennett. I think his intent was to be an asshole and then prove that he is such an important, highly regarded asshole that he could get away with it. I think he is lying. I think he’s a fat pig who deserves every bit of the criticism he’ll take for this, and more.
John Cole
I wasnt wrong about this, and I am hardly ‘sneaking’ it back into a conversation by discussing it as one of the central portions of my argument in a front page post that remained at the top of the page for almost a day.
Second, this issue has been explained to you over and over again, and neither you nor Paul Lukasiak understand the argument or you choose not to- the first sign that Paul has his head up his ass is this statement:
Which isn’t what Bennett asserted or thinks- in fact, if you follow Bennett’s logic, it is the opposite of what he thinks, which makes Lukasiak’s idiotic ruminations even more astounding.
But, because Paul is a good progressive warrior, the truth is always secondary to the party line, which is that republicans are racist, Bennett is the worst of the republicans, and that whenever a Republican discusses issues of race, he is de facto racist- particularly when the audience (inb this case, Paul) is too dim or too partisan to understand anything outside his narrow scope of predefined truths.
Maybe Paul has a better explanation for his recalcitrance. Maybe Bill Burkett told him Bennett is racist- so he is just sticking to it as a matter of faith.
And you know the most ANNOYING aspect about the whole Bennett flap? I HATE BILL BENNETT. I am not, however, going to sit around and let people too silly to argue fairly or honestly to sit around and smear him as racist for something that is not racist at all.
DougJ
I do think it’s worth thinking about what the reaction would have been if he’d said something similar about another ethnic group. What if he had said “If you aborted all the Italian babies, we wouldn’t have such a big problem with the mafia” or “If we aborted all the jewish babies, there wouldn’t be so many frivolous lawsuits” or “If we aborted all the chinese babies, where would I get my clothes dry-cleaned”. Would people have been offended by that?
DougJ
How about “if you aborted all the babies in West Virginia, the average IQ of the country would go up”? Would that be offensive?
I’m not saying these things are or are not clearly offensive. It just seems like the right way to look at it — everything to do with white/black is so charged that it distorts things sometimes.
Pb
John,
Who am I to believe… John, or my own lyin’ ears…
DougJ
PB, Bill Bennett could believe what he said and yet think that the cause of the high African-American crime rate was environmental rather than genetic. He could believe that it is all due to racism. There’s just no way to claim that he meant there was some genetic factor at work here.
Let’s all remember something: the last time everyone jumped on someone for making dubiously racist comments, we ended up with Bill Frist as majority leader of the Senate. I think there’s a lesson there.
Pb
DougJ,
I think the main thing for me is that he isn’t giving those babies a chance. Apparently his crystal ball hates black fetuses.
As for the lesson… Trent Lott is definitely more competent at his job, but that doesn’t excuse him for anything, and it doesn’t excuse the Republicans for picking Frist. However, speaking as a non-Republican, I think Fristie has been doin’ a heck of a job. :)
ppGaz
Please don’t wrap Lukasiak and then use him as a club to beat me. His assertions and mine on this subject are quite different.
I’m right. Lukasiak …. I dunno. You? Wrong. When you live by the overblown public persona, you die by it. Tough shit. I am referring to Bill, not to you. He’s an asshole and deserves whatever he gets, and a lot more. Why anyone would waste their time defending that fat ass is beyond me.
Veeshir
It means whatever you want it to mean.
Bing, bing, bing. We have a winner.
Exactly the point. You nitwits have decided that something is racist because you feel it is racist.
Meanwhile, in the real world, words have meaning.
Veeshir
Sorry, forgot to add this,
That’s why we have dictionaries.
ppGaz
Next, an explanation of why we have fatasses like Bennett, please.
Thx in advance!
DougJ
I don’t want to turn into a big Bill Bennet apologist here, but I think we’ve got bigger problems than him. Starting with an entire news network filled with Republican hacks going all the way up to a vice-president who has a hard-on for torture, in every sense of the word. Shouldn’t we be discussing that instead.
ppGaz
Why, yes. Yes we should.
John S.
Veeshir-
The part about about defiling her with her blood and stealing her from her people from a racial purist’s standpoint is 100% true. I suppose that is why you didn’t address that part of the quote.
LOL. Something is racist when it is 1. Based on racial intolerance or 2. Discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion. It has nothing to do with a feeling, and had you bothered to refer to the definition you wouldn’t make such ridiculous statements, which makes this hilarious:
Indeed. Try using it next time.
John Cole
I always cringe when DougJ is going to comment because I never know what he is going to say, but on this one, he is spot on. Of course the reason bennett said this is because we know of all the environmental factors (not to mention senetncing disparities and conviction disparities) that lead to a higher crime rate for blacks rather than whites.
How do we know this? Because progresssives and liberals have been telling us this for the past 30 years, and they are right. And most conservatives now agree with them, which is why you have people like Bill Bennett and Jack Kemp running around pushing empowerment zones and reaching out to black m inistries. It is why Bill bennett b elieved so passionately in the war on drugs.
It is what terms like ‘cycle of violence’ and ‘cycle of poverty’ mean- children born in bad situations have bad things happen to them, and un fortunately, due to real racism and a number of other factors, black people are born into these circumstances at a higher rate.
Only a total asshole would assert that Bennett meant that the blackness of the baby is what condemns it to higher chance of a life of crime.
Otto Man
I get your point, John. But if Bennett really meant “people in poor environments” or “those caught in the culture of poverty,” then he should’ve just said that. Instead, he referred to killing all black babies, a statement which at its best assumes that all black babies come from a poor environment.
That’s a blanket assumption based on skin color and, according to Veeshir’s dictionary, that’s racist.
DougJ
Otto, it was a radio show where he was responding to a caller. If he had written in an Op-Ed piece it would have been different. People don’t always phrase things well off the top of their heads.
John Cole
ARRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
This is like trying to teach my cat French. I give up, and I feel sorry for stats and math teachers everywhere.
Blacks, not because they are blacks, but because of the nvironmental factors we all agree on, commit crimes at a higher rate than whites, who do not, as a population, suffer the same widespread crippling effects of poverty and so forth. However, the crim rate, as a total number, is made up of the crimes of blacks and whites. If you removed all the blacks from the equation, the crime rate would GO DOWN.
You have two populations- Population A, and Population B.
Population A commits crimes at a rate of 300 per 1000 and make up 30% of the population.
Population B commits crimes at a rate of 100 per 1000 and make up 70% of the population.
Together, the crime rate is..
Oh never mind. I just give up. I don’t care if you guys don’t understand the argment Bennett was making.
Veeshir
The part about about defiling her with her blood and stealing her from her people from a racial purist’s standpoint is 100% true
I did touch on that.
Are you saying that you think it’s true that a Jew, by definition, would defile a girl’s blood?
Stealing her from her people? How so? Do Jews steal women regularly?
I’m going to have to take a break from this blog for a while. And don’t take a bow ppGaz, it’s not because of you. It’s because of the intellectual dishonesty of too many commenters here.
I have to admit, Tim F’s comparison, and defense of that comparison, of the USSR’s decades long system of working political prisoners to death to the US detaining people who like to stand next to pregnant women pushing a stroller before blowing themselves up really ticked me off.
That was despicable.
Have fun nitwits. Glory in your stupidity. I’ll be back when I have calmed down.
ppGaz
Of course, the whole argument is based on a false dichotomy. The question is not whether Bennett believes that black people are genetically predisposed to crime. Although, for the record, nobody but Bennett knows whether he does think that. And quite honestly I could care a lot less what he thinks about that.
The real issue is, why in the world would the guy make the tortured and grotesque argument he made ON THE RADIO, in the first place, knowing that it would raise eyebrows?
Because HE is the “total asshole” in the equation. Because he is a pompous fatassed prick who thinks he is really important and has a “following” that will stick up for him. He thinks he can say anything. His shitty “argument” doesn’t contribute anything to anything. It doesn’t solve any problems, it doesn’t heal any divisions, it doesn’t illuminate anything. All it does is get people riled up, and you took the bait, John, and gulped it down like a fish that hadn’t had a meal in a year.
Not only was the argument worthless, like Bennett himself, the churn it created was of no value to anyone or anything. All it did was cause a lot of noise … which Bennett could have ended with about two sentences: “Hey, it was a poorly constructed argument. Sorry, didn’t mean to offend anybody.”
But no, in the phony “PC-sensitized” world we live in, such a thing is unthinkable. Because you see, the whole point was to put up a strawman PC “outrage” and then sell tickets to it.
Bennett is an asshole, pure and simple. I don’t know what you are in this situation. I’ll be charitable and say you’re just a dupe. Believe me, that’s the best offer on the table.
DougJ
Because he’s a jack-ass. And he thinks that tortured arguments are the best way to show off his Philosophy PhD.
But that doesn’t make him a racist. He really does have a pretty good record on race issues, including co-signing a letter to then Cal governor Pete Wilson telling him to go easy on the immigrant-bashing.
Bennett is a hypocrite of the worst kind: a gamblig addict who lectures others about self-control. But I really don’t think he’s a racist.
John S.
Veeshir-
As a jew, I disagree with all of the above. But clearly, these things are entirely subjective which I think is the important distinction. Truth is in the eye of the beholder – racism is far less subjective. Qualifying a statement as racist is far more eas
Enjoy your break, but realize that you quite possibly contribute to the ‘intellectual dishonesty’ as much as anyone else does. Personally, I prefer to think people are stubborn and opinionated first before branding them as dishonest, but thats just me.
This isn’t necessarily intellectually dishonest, but is completely uneccessary and pointless. If you think there is a fire breaking out around here, don’t pour gasoline on it.
John Cole
Because there is nothing wrong with his argument, which was THAT YOU DON’T MAKE MORAL DECISIONS BASED ON UTILITARIAN ARGUMENTS BECAUSE THEN YOU COME TO ALL SORTS OF EVIL AND WRONG CONCLUSIONS. The point of an argument ad absurdum is to raise eyebrows, to make you think (which, for some of you, is simply not going to happen under any circumstances).
It has nothing to do with him being a jackass (which I think he is), and it has nothing to do with him showing off.
This whole thing has sailed passed you all, and I can’t make you understand it and don’t care to try anymore.
I get it though- you hate Bennett. Whatever. I thought Republicans were supposed to be the dumb people.
ppGaz
I have not asserted that he is a racist. Neither you nor I have any real evidence on which to base a judgment about whether he is a racist or not, Dougster. All we have is Bennett’s public persona, the fatass holier-than-thou craphead-for-hire that he is. Racist or no? Who knows, and who cares?
The question is, why did he say what he did? My opinion is that he intended to get attention. Period. And thanks to the phony PC-baiters of the world, who shall here be unnamed lest we incur a deluge of bitter name-calling, he got his wish. He got the attention he so richly does not deserve. How fucking wonderful for him and for all the bloggers out there who could harvest it for page views.
John S.
You really can’t seem to grasp that we can understand his statement entirely, but still disagree with it and find it incredibly ridiculous to even make in the first place.
ppGaz
Well, on this we must agree to forever disagree, because you are just dead-nuts 180 degrees wrong. It has everything to do with that, and it has nothing to do with anything else.
The fatass played you, John. Seriously. You are about a billion times better than he is. Don’t let that blimp reel you in.
John Cole
You know what, I am not even going to bother to point out the type of fallacy that last statement was…
ppGaz
Seriously. A billion.
John Cole
No, I don’t. Because if you understand his statement completely, there is only one conclusion to come to- the one Brad DeLong and Matt Yglesias and I all have.
ppGaz
Honestly, you can look at that guy and think that he deserves any defense?
What would you call what he did? Good teaching? Brilliant oration? Clever argumentation?
What brilliant and necessary point was he (a) making that (b) could not have been made some other, less inflamatory way, and (c) then why the hell didn’t he?
ppGaz
Oh Christ. I do understand his crummy statement, I understood it the first time I saw it.
Please.
John S.
That seems like a pile of horse shit. “If you really understood, you’d think like me?”
Come on, man.
Steve S
Honestly I think people attacked Bennett unfairly.
Not that I particularly like Bennett. I think he’s an ass. And I find it interesting that people go to him asking about morality when he’s just about one of the most immoral people I’ve ever seen in the public arena. Which is why he got into trouble.
But Jeff “Al Sharpton” Goldstein is kind of funny whining about identity politics. More projection on his part, apparently. Next he’ll complain that he doesn’t like being called names and go off in a tirade calling people a fat ass, atrios cock sucker. Oh wait, he’s already done that.
ppGaz
Which would be valid if the argument had been made by a distant space alien and delivered by angels.
But it wasn’t. It was delivered, and made, by Bill Bennett. A miserable excuse for a human being, a paid scold, a phony, a huckster.
That’s the point. Look at who made this completely unnecessary gaffe, this completely unforced error. It wasn’t made by your kind old grandmother. It was made by a guy who is about half a notch from being Pat Robertson, for crissakes.
John Cole
So now we are just arguing stylistic points. Glad we now agree he is not a racist nor making a racist statement.
If you continue to insist he said something racist or meant something racist, and if you continue to insist he said something objectively wrong (and not, as is the case here, something that could merely be portrayed as wrong by the race-baiters and the nitwits), then you did not understand Bill Bennett at all.
Because Bill Bennett maintains he said nothing racist and said nothing wrong, and I agree with him. In fact, you didn’t understand his statement at all. You couldn’t possibly have, given your statements here.
ppGaz
No, your beef is with somebody else. I assert that he said something that he knew would be taken as racist, and tossed it off with a shrug because he is a self-important **&^&^%$. I’m out of swear words to describe the man.
I assert that he did it just for the sheer hell of it. He did not need the tortured “argument” to make whatever point you think he was trying to make.
We are talking about a fat huckster who has made a living on the pretense that he is morally superior to a whole lot of other people.
Otto Man
Which is easy to do when you condemn every vice under the sun except the one you personally embrace.
Another Jeff
If he did it for the sheer hell of it, wouldn’t he have said it much sooner in his career, rather than waiting until he was debating someone who was arguing that there is indeed a correlation between abortion and crime rates?
John S.
Did Bill say something that was:
1. Based on racial intolerance
2. Discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion
If the answer to either is “yes”, then it was a racist comment, pure and simple.
ppGaz
Well, this is the basis for disagreement, then. I think I understand him perfectly. I think he’s a con artist. I think he has an ego the size of his butt. I think he knew exactly what he was doing, and if he says he’s surprised by the reaction, he’s a liar.
Bill Bennett is to the “save Terri” crowd what Pat Robertson is to the 700 Club. He’s to morality what Ted Baxter was to journalism.
DougJ
We all agree on that, as far I can tell, John Cole included.
ppGaz
Early in his “career” as a piety-pimp? Why? Why not wait until late in his career when hardly anybody pays any attention to him any more, and he needs to stir up some attention?
Maybe his agent knows. As you know, all morally superior people have agents. And radio shows.
DougJ
That’s possible. Maybe he needed better ratings to get a better salary to pay off some gambling debts. I say that as a smart ass, but it could very well be true.
But I don’t think it is fair to say that John is defending him. John is saying that Bennett is a hypocritical asshole. With defenders like that, who needs critics. He is also saying that to say his comments prove he hates black people is silly. And I agree with tat.
ppGaz
Sorry, can’t agree. You are making the “no controlling legal authority” argument.
No Controlling Legal Authority could prove, based on Bennett’s radio transcript, that the man is a racist. True enough.
But is he a racist? Who knows? I don’t really care that much one way or the other. I do think he’s a mental case, a giant ego and a phony, and it would not surprise me in the least if he were racist. But even if you put his brain in a jar and analzed it neuron by neuron and proved that he wasn’t a racist, it wouldn’t change my mind about this topic. My opinion doesn’t rest on Bennett’s innermost ideas about race. It rests on his willingness to be a shill for phony holier-than-thou hypocrites.
As I said early on …. why in the world would anyone defend the guy? To make some not-very-interesting point about speech and racism? To have a good laugh at some poor sould who really doesn’t get what Bennett said?
Wow. What a fucking waste of bandwidth.
DougJ
Let’s go back to talking about what would happen if Bennett ate a baby.
We find self-styled ‘conservatives’ accepting this line of thought, and engaging in ridiculous exercises such as demanding an apology from Bill Bennett, who should have ‘known better’ that his decision to eat a black baby would be “portrayed” as “racist” and “insensitive”.
ppGaz
I love the “self-styled” tag.
That’s one that is used whenever the writer is just plum out of adjectives. It’s a bolt on. It’s a pair of fuzzy dice hanging from the rear view mirror of the rhetoric.
About half of what you see in this blog is the direct result of the fact that John is a liberal, and just can’t stand it.
Kimmitt
Isn’t the “Oreo pelting” story now under review by officials?