The Barking of the Moonbats
If you want to take a look at why our country's in trouble, you need only look at the edges of the political spectrum, who have grown more vocal and more powerful in the last 10 years. The same tech that allows me to write here, or that allow many people to give their learned opinions, is useful to the fringes who use that tech to spread invective and supreme dissonance.
Over the last few days, I've watched people tear down a friend of mine like he was a political appointee. Was he a political appointee? No. He's a Washington Post Blogger.
Once upon a time, when the printed word on paper was the currency of thought, men wrote articles, paid for the printing thereof, and distributed them to taverns, coffee houses and town halls all around the colonies. We called them Pamphleteers. Their most famous? Thomas Paine. He wrote Common Sense which was one of the most compelling arguments for the Declaration of Independence. These men were the original bloggers. They answered only to themselves and to each other, not the people bankrolling their pens and presses.
But, as presses became less expensive, as technology expanded, so too expanded the number of pamphleteers, many of whom were unable to hold a candle to the philosophy and ethics of the original authors. Ben Domenech is one of those originals. He's one of the best men I've had the privilege of knowing, and I find the arguments against his employment at the Post not based on anything he's written there, but merely based on the fact that he disagrees with the complainants opinions and personal philosophy. The witch hunt that it's become is amazing to me.
It's also very disheartening. The same scrutiny that we're seeing applying to Ben is applied all over the country. We're seeing all manner of people decide not to run for public office because of the hardship that it will put their family and friends through. Old college papers. Old girlfriends. Old professors. These are the things we turn to and dig through in judging people, and their content, no matter how old, are given exclusive status as “windows into the soul.” Now, because I wrote a paper in the freshman year of college that espoused an unpopular opinion, I'm ineligible for office. Not exactly fair, is it?
Leave Ben alone. Let his columns speak his mind, and judge him on those. Doing otherwise harms the dialogue we're in as a country.
Comments:
Let me preface this statement by saying I don’t know Ben’s work (in anything more than a cursory-look capacity). I strongly suspect that I would find little to agree with him on politically, but everything I've heard has been secondhand, so I’m going to reserve judgment.
There are two schools of thought in the protest arena. The first — with which I find myself in agreement — is that the decision to hire him was an utterly wrongheaded, knee-jerk reaction to overblown (and strategically ochestrated) protests about Dan Froomkin’s column being overly critical of the Bush administration. Kowtowing to a very vocal minority with a persecution complex, as it were. Fine, fair enough — but in this case, the criticism is of the washingtonpost.com editorial board, not with Domenech. And that criticism should be directed appropriately.
The second is that any right-leaning (or perhaps “right-wing,” though again, that’s not an assessment I am even suggesting at this point) opinion is deserving of outright attack for no other reason than that it comes from the right.
Let me be clear — I am by no means above personal attacks; I’ll fully admit to any perceived hypocrisy right up front. But I at least try to make a distinction between views I can respect but disagree with and views that by their very nature I cannot respect. For example, I find myself in disagreement with much of the libertarian philosophy, but I do listen to Penn Jillette regularly (or — ahem — read the occasional libertarian-leaning weblog) and respect that point of view as being legitimate. Hell, I can disagree with the neocon strategy that invading Iraq was a necessary first step in achieving lasting security in the Middle East, but (so long as it’s presented straightforwardly — and that’s a big qualifier) I can look at it as a legitimate alternative point of view. I disagree with Christianity (or Islam, Hinduism, or most other major religions), but fully respect people’s to view the world through a different “lens,” so to speak. From my perspective, religion is (or at least can be) just a different way of interpreting things, of understanding that which everyday experience cannot cover. (Not to mention that religion has produced some of the best music in all of recorded history — debates about Beethoven’s specific beliefs notwithstanding.)
On the other hand, we have raving lunatics like, say, the Westboro Baptist Church (a.k.a. the “God Hates Fags” ranters) set. While, as a First Amendment nut, I will defend their right to express their opinion (within practical limits), I have absolutely no respect for the opinions themselves. And in this particular case, this disrespect extends to those expressing the opinions. I have no respect whatsoever for Fred Phelps and his cronies; if I believed in a Manichean universe, I would take great pleaure in the thought that these people would burn in Hell for all eternity.
In between the two there is some gray area. I don’t respect George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Katherine Harris, John Cornyn, William Donohue, Sam Brownback, Pat Robertson, or any number of other extreme right-wingers — not even as human beings (I usually stop short of wishing that they spend eternity in Hell, though). I will readily engage in unlimited personal attacks upon them, because their publicly expressed views are so offensive as to irrevocably reflect on them as individuals. But that’s not to say that people who do have respect for either their views or them as human beings must necessarily be tarred with the same brush.
A key distinction: There’s a world of difference between expressing an opinion and using a position of power (either elected office or disproportionate political/financial influence) to force those opinions on those of us who do not share them. Religious evangelicals (even organized evangelicals) are pretty much inoffensive; those who attempt to impose their views on others by way of governmental power are most assuredly not. A John Cornyn sitting at home in Texas talking about how he hates homosexuals does not warrant personal attack. The same man legislating his bigotry sure as hell does. (That might be seen as a point of disagreement with your case that people entering public office shouldn’t be attacked without cause, but I think we’re still in fundamental agreement that the substance of any attacks should be relevant to the particular context. Freshman papers — just like “Swift Boat” attacks — should really be left out of it.)
Frankly, some of the attacks leveled against Domenech have seemed a little childish. Saying his movie reviews at William and Mary’s Flat Hat newspaper (for whom, incidentally, I used to write reviews as well, in addition to serving a stint as graphics editor) might have been “borrowed” from other reviews might have relevance in an academic setting (so I have no problem with the Flat Hat editorial staff making it an issue), or if Domenech were being asked to serve as a journalist, as opposed to being asked to express his opinion. But otherwise, it’s a little silly. If true, it would have been wrong, yes, but at least mostly irrelevant (kind of like a president having sex, but that’s another argument). As for calling Coretta Scott King a “communist,” it’s inflammatory, sure. But like it or not, it is a defensible position, particularly if it was hyperbole (and hell, I could have told you that Bush attending her funeral was a bad idea).
I find no fault with pointing out (to the public at large, and presumably by extension to the washingtonpost.com editorial staff) that an author’s views are extreme, offensive, inflammatory, whatever. And with that in mind, I’ll disagree with you that he should be judged solely on the columns he writes for washingtonpost.com; I would contend that his (public) writing beforehand is legitimate territory for criticism. But until I see evidence otherwise (and I do reserve the right to change my mind), I think it’s probably best to keep criticism of Domenech limited to that writing, and criticism of the circumstances of his hiring separate from the man himself.
(Speaking of reserving rights, I also reserve the right to adapt this long-winded comment for inclusion on my own blog. Make what judgments you will about us William and Mary movie review writers.)
Posted by Bill Coughlan on March 24, 2006 — 11:39 AM
Bill, I have not the energy to take on your post here, nor really the inclination to fight with a person who can't respect his political opponents right to live.
Posted by Tom Bridge on March 24, 2006 — 3:44 PM
Fair enough. My post was admittedly long-winded and — as usual — more than a bit inflammatory (not to mention veering more than a tad off-topic).
I would clarify that (disregarding my hyperbole) I most emphatically do not mean to show disrespect for anyone's "right to live." I blow up, get angry, and occasionally shout down my opponents, but I'm not about to advocate ending the lives of those with different views. I should make it clear that by saying I don't respect people "as human beings," I am speaking in terms of according them the same degree of respect I would accord any complete stranger (i.e., a metaphorical interpretation); this could easily have been interpreted as meaning I view them as somehow "less than human" (i.e., a literal interpretation), which would be a grave misunderstanding. Not to mention an extremely slippery slope. In that regard, I apologize for the inference.
Now, that is not quite the same thing as saying I care in the slightest about their well-being. As a social animal, we tend to have greater circles of concern for those around us. I care about myself, my family, friends, community, state, nation, world, etc.; the degree of concern (usually) diminishes as that circle radiates outward. To a degree, it's logical — a basic survival mechanism. The safer those larger circles are, the safer the smaller ones are.
But to pretend that, for example, I am somehow supposed to be less sympathetic for someone born outside my nation's borders (even willing to kill him if my government so determines) than I am for someone who actively works to fight me and my immediate circle is ludicrous (at least in my estimation). Yes, in one respect, the people I cited above are my "political opponents." But insofar as they've dedicated their personal and professional lives to (variously) destroying the rights of American citizens, crushing opposition beneath their (figurative) boot heels, and otherwise substantially decreasing the security of several of my circles, then no, I do not sympathize with them.
In the case of the Westboro Baptist Church, I stand by every word I said. Yes, they have the right to speak — just as does the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazi party, or any other overt hate group. But I do consider them outright enemies to both myself and America.
Posted by Bill Coughlan on March 27, 2006 — 10:21 AM