Friday, May 07, 2004
|
I’d like to have a little fun with an article I stumbled upon. This article keeps with my recent theme of blogging about American political identity. My many (and delighted) thanks to Joan Vennochi of the Boston Globe for penning this eminently mockable piece of schlock.
Columnist Vennochi begins by declaring that liberals should “stop whining about the right-wing spin machine” because the mainstream media is soft on the left’s hypocrisy. She offers up examples to prove her point. Deconstructing columnist Vennochi’s bias is the subject of this blog. My favorite of her examples is taken from her May 4, 2004 Boston Globe:
“Karen Hughes, Republican adviser to President Bush, said: "The fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life." Hughes was giving an interview about the March for Women's Lives and making an obvious connection between terrorists and pro-choice advocates. Terrible, isn't it?
Yet the Associated Press account of the April 25 march contained this paragraph: "Feminist Gloria Steinem accused Bush of squandering international good will and taking positions so socially conservative that he seems -- according to Steinem -- to be in league with the likes of Muslim extremists or the Vatican." How different is that from the sentiment expressed by Hughes?”
Hmmm, lets think about this for a second. What could Karen Hughes have meant? Consider a more complete version of the quote columnist Vennochi used. This more expansive quote is taken directly from the CNN transcripts of Wolf Blitzer’s interview of Karen Hughes on April 25, 2004. In response to one of Blitzer’s question, Hughes responds:
"And President Bush has worked to say, let's be reasonable, let's work to value life, let's try to reduce the number of abortions, let's increase adoptions.
And I think those are the kind of policies that the American people can support, particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy, and really the fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life. It's the founding conviction of our country, that we're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Unfortunately our enemies in the terror network, as we're seeing repeatedly in the headlines these days, don't value any life, not even the innocent and not even their own."
Obviously Hughes is using the phrase “we value every life” synonymously with “the rights of the unborn”. In other words, Hughes is signaling her allegiance with the Right wing, right to life movements (which is, not surprisingly, anti-abortion). Both the Vatican and Muslim extremis condemn abortions therefore that Hughes and Steinem mean very different things.
Note that my quote comes directly from source material while columnist Vennochi is using a secondary source. Admittedly the AP wire is a reliable new outlet, but in relying on the AP she has taken Hughes’ quote out of context. In the proper context, columnist Vennochi’s point falls apart. Hughes made grossly inappropriate comment in comparing a woman’s right to choose to terrorism. That is terrible – Vennochi is right on that point.
Here’s her duplicity, to prove her article’s thesis (that the mainstream media is soft on liberal hypocrisy), she claims the Steinem’s comments are as inappropriate as Hughes’. That is an unpardonable distortion. Steinem correctly asserts that the Bush administration, the Vatican, and Muslim extremists believe abortions are evil. That is not a distortion. To consider Hughes’ and Steinem’s statements equivalent is just plain wrong.
How did columnist Vennuchi make this mistake? It seems there are only two options, she goofed or she lied. Let’s be good Christians and assume she was sloppy (even though a journalist should get their facts straight for publishing an article). It would be magnanimous to extend columnist Vennuchi the benefit of doubt that she denied Steinem.
If Vennuchi lied, then we get to why I wrote this blog. What motive drives someone to lie so publicly? Is it that Vennochi or the Boston Globe leans so far right that “Steinem” is a dirty word? That sort of partisanship plays right into what baffles me about contemporary American political identity. Why aren’t the facts enough? Why does the world around us need to warp until it fits within the partisan worldview?
Don’t take my word for it, check out Vennochi’s article and the Hughes interview transcript for yourself. If you find I’m biased – comment me. I like a chance to defend myself.
Vennochi’s article
Hughes Interview Transcript
Columnist Vennochi begins by declaring that liberals should “stop whining about the right-wing spin machine” because the mainstream media is soft on the left’s hypocrisy. She offers up examples to prove her point. Deconstructing columnist Vennochi’s bias is the subject of this blog. My favorite of her examples is taken from her May 4, 2004 Boston Globe:
“Karen Hughes, Republican adviser to President Bush, said: "The fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life." Hughes was giving an interview about the March for Women's Lives and making an obvious connection between terrorists and pro-choice advocates. Terrible, isn't it?
Yet the Associated Press account of the April 25 march contained this paragraph: "Feminist Gloria Steinem accused Bush of squandering international good will and taking positions so socially conservative that he seems -- according to Steinem -- to be in league with the likes of Muslim extremists or the Vatican." How different is that from the sentiment expressed by Hughes?”
Hmmm, lets think about this for a second. What could Karen Hughes have meant? Consider a more complete version of the quote columnist Vennochi used. This more expansive quote is taken directly from the CNN transcripts of Wolf Blitzer’s interview of Karen Hughes on April 25, 2004. In response to one of Blitzer’s question, Hughes responds:
"And President Bush has worked to say, let's be reasonable, let's work to value life, let's try to reduce the number of abortions, let's increase adoptions.
And I think those are the kind of policies that the American people can support, particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy, and really the fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life. It's the founding conviction of our country, that we're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Unfortunately our enemies in the terror network, as we're seeing repeatedly in the headlines these days, don't value any life, not even the innocent and not even their own."
Obviously Hughes is using the phrase “we value every life” synonymously with “the rights of the unborn”. In other words, Hughes is signaling her allegiance with the Right wing, right to life movements (which is, not surprisingly, anti-abortion). Both the Vatican and Muslim extremis condemn abortions therefore that Hughes and Steinem mean very different things.
Note that my quote comes directly from source material while columnist Vennochi is using a secondary source. Admittedly the AP wire is a reliable new outlet, but in relying on the AP she has taken Hughes’ quote out of context. In the proper context, columnist Vennochi’s point falls apart. Hughes made grossly inappropriate comment in comparing a woman’s right to choose to terrorism. That is terrible – Vennochi is right on that point.
Here’s her duplicity, to prove her article’s thesis (that the mainstream media is soft on liberal hypocrisy), she claims the Steinem’s comments are as inappropriate as Hughes’. That is an unpardonable distortion. Steinem correctly asserts that the Bush administration, the Vatican, and Muslim extremists believe abortions are evil. That is not a distortion. To consider Hughes’ and Steinem’s statements equivalent is just plain wrong.
How did columnist Vennuchi make this mistake? It seems there are only two options, she goofed or she lied. Let’s be good Christians and assume she was sloppy (even though a journalist should get their facts straight for publishing an article). It would be magnanimous to extend columnist Vennuchi the benefit of doubt that she denied Steinem.
If Vennuchi lied, then we get to why I wrote this blog. What motive drives someone to lie so publicly? Is it that Vennochi or the Boston Globe leans so far right that “Steinem” is a dirty word? That sort of partisanship plays right into what baffles me about contemporary American political identity. Why aren’t the facts enough? Why does the world around us need to warp until it fits within the partisan worldview?
Don’t take my word for it, check out Vennochi’s article and the Hughes interview transcript for yourself. If you find I’m biased – comment me. I like a chance to defend myself.
Monday, May 03, 2004
|
Certain tenants of the Right wing’s anti-government stance baffle me. Specifically I don’t get where the connection between lower taxes and higher economic growth come from. This is repeated like mantra to ward of evil spirits (or government spending at least).
Lower taxes mean economic growth!
Lower taxes mean economic growth!
(Say it with me, now!)
Lower taxes mean economic growth!
Hmmm, it must be true – I don’t see any evil spirits. Nor do the Right-wingers seem to see any government spending. Roads, schools, the stock market, social security, their home (via federally subsidized mortgages) are all examples of what they don’t seem to see. At least they don’t see how the government’s spending plays a role in making these things happen. There’s a blind spot that says the middle-class American life is independent of the government. That same bias says that government is an inefficient void that illegitimately steals from the fair citizens of this great land. And this theft retards economic growth. (I don’t get how that works, but they seem to).
Somehow the positive effects of government are missed (or ignored). That is a key point. The Left wing shake their heads at middle-class Republicans and don’t understand how they can vote for politicians that cut the programs that make a middle-class lifestyle attainable. The Left makes the same mistake economists make, people are not rational. Typically, people do not vote for the candidate that will give them the most money. Instead people usually vote for the candidate they identify with. Most people’s votes are driven by emotion, not logic. (this gets to the point of my last entry, what is political identity? why is it so powerful? why aren’t we logical?)
PS – sorry for the cheap shot Professor Craig…I couldn’t resist.
Lower taxes mean economic growth!
Lower taxes mean economic growth!
(Say it with me, now!)
Lower taxes mean economic growth!
Hmmm, it must be true – I don’t see any evil spirits. Nor do the Right-wingers seem to see any government spending. Roads, schools, the stock market, social security, their home (via federally subsidized mortgages) are all examples of what they don’t seem to see. At least they don’t see how the government’s spending plays a role in making these things happen. There’s a blind spot that says the middle-class American life is independent of the government. That same bias says that government is an inefficient void that illegitimately steals from the fair citizens of this great land. And this theft retards economic growth. (I don’t get how that works, but they seem to).
Somehow the positive effects of government are missed (or ignored). That is a key point. The Left wing shake their heads at middle-class Republicans and don’t understand how they can vote for politicians that cut the programs that make a middle-class lifestyle attainable. The Left makes the same mistake economists make, people are not rational. Typically, people do not vote for the candidate that will give them the most money. Instead people usually vote for the candidate they identify with. Most people’s votes are driven by emotion, not logic. (this gets to the point of my last entry, what is political identity? why is it so powerful? why aren’t we logical?)
PS – sorry for the cheap shot Professor Craig…I couldn’t resist.
