Since it's a dead thread...Follow

See how easy this is? ;)



As I actually alluded to in the original thread. I suspect it's a bit of all of those. It's obviously about political correctness. I'm sure some may be actually outraged, but I suspect no more or less than the Dems are in similar cases involving a member of the GOP.

I'm sure there's quite a bit of motivation to show hypocrisy on the part of the Dems. As I also pointed out in that thread, if this had been said by a ranking member of the GOP (or any member for that matter), this would have been condemned by every single member of the Democratic Party, every Liberal pundit, and every demagogue who could get within 10 feet of a microphone. It's telling that Dems seem to only recognize that these sorts of outrage events are really just overly sensitive political correctness when it's politically convenient for them to do so.


I think at the end of the day though, it's somewhat irrelevant what those politicians actually feel about this. I don't know their minds and hearts. What's more relevant is that when it's a GOP member who says or does something like this, both the Dems and the GOP join in condemning it, the liberal pundits condemn it, and most conservative pundits point out that it's just political correctness. When it's a Dem doing something like this, the GOP condemn it, the Dems downplay it or excuse it, the Liberal pundits say it's just political correctness, and most of the conservative pundits say it's just political correctness.


Two groups change their position based on who's at fault. And it's not the folks on the Right side of the political aisle. We can absolutely agree that political correctness is silly. However, it's a political reality as well. And it's a political reality in which the GOP is held to a different standard than the Dems. We can sit here all day long talking about *why* that is, but I think it's clear that it is. And that's what fuels this sort of different reaction.

IMO, the GOP reaction is based on the fact that this is how they have to react when one of their own does something like this. Whether it's an honest reaction or not, it's how they have to react or they get labeled a racist or whatever. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to expect that the same reaction is "fair" when it's a Democrat doing the act in question.


At the end of the day, which is worse? Political correctness, or inconsistent political correctness?




To be fair, it was an incredibly dumb thing to say. The broader point, which is largely lost in all of this, is that it was a fairly accurate statement. Those reasons presumably *were* high on the list of reasons why the Democrats thought Obama could be a viable national candidate. It's not like he's wrong to say that a black man speaking in rhyming sing-song cadence, walking along with black sunglasses and a possee would have a hard time getting taken seriously as a presidential candidate.


I'm sure he meant that statement as some kind of condemnation of assumed white racism, presumably with an anti-conservative slant, but it pretty firmly backfired on him. What he revealed, which is far more important than the political correctness angle, is the degree to which Dem support for minority candidates may just be calculated rather than the assumed true support for their positions and issues. The next question someone might ask is: If the black candidate is chosen based on such criteria, then why is he chosen at all? Is that also just a calculation based on racial identity politics designed to gain votes based on appearance rather than on ideas? Do the Dems actually stand around and calculate that they need a white woman to run in this district, and a black man to run here, a Latina there, etc...? And that brings a whole bunch more questions up which the Dems would presumably not have anyone ask.

The GOP tends to be honest about its political positions and the principles which lead them, even when that's not the best way to get votes in a given area. The Dems appeal to racial and gender groups on specific issues important to them. Do they do that just to get their votes? How much of that is calculated, and if so, then what are the real ideologies and principles you're getting when you vote for Democrats? Is the entire party just a thin shell of identity politics with nothing underneath? Or is there something else...


I'll also point out another major point with regard to the hypocrisy angle. Democrats run on the issue of racial identity politics. They run on the idea of political correctness. They practically invented the idea as a way of shaming other politicians into supporting their agenda. Republicans didn't create political correctness. They are more often than not, the victims of it. They are usually the ones unfairly labeled as racist or sexist because they don't support some social program, or made some statement which could be taken out of context and made to sound bad. They've had to deal with this for decades. So yeah, I can see a bit of irritation that whenever the shoe is on the other foot, the high priests of political correctness magically decide it's just not that important.



IMO, the hypocrisy angle is much more important here. If we should avoid instances of political correctness, then we should do it in all cases, not just the ones that are convenient to us.

Edited, Jan 13th 2010 9:39pm by gbaji

I'd say it's far less about trying to expose hypocrisy than blatant trying to score political points. The former tries to sound somewhat noble and the latter is pure partisan gamesplaying.

I don't think there was much nobility going around.


IMO, you're amazingly pollyanna. They weren't forced into it, they dived in when it looked like a chance to ding some points.

Which is "fine" in the sense that part of politics is getting elected and all that. But it's really silly and naive to pretend that this was something deeper than "Woohoo! Chance to get on TV and say how bad a Democrat is!" There's no need to make excuses for them except to avoid admitting that, zoinks!, you support a party that sometimes lies about its motives!

Sure. In the same way that a can of Coca-Cola is both sugar-laden and nutritious. The fact that it contains a little bit of life-requiring sodium doesn't really make it on balance with the sugar aspect.


Neither. Both. It's a pointless question.


I never claimed they were. Which is why I thought it funny that you're trying so hard to make excuses for the Republicans engaging in a simple game of partisan hackery.

Excuses which, amusingly enough, boil down to "The liberals made them do it!". Now there's a real shocker

No. It's not. It's the central question at issue here. You label it "pointless" precisely because it's the central issue, but it speaks poorly of the party you support.

We can debate the legitimacy of speed limit laws, but we would all think it's wrong for the police to only apply them to a group of people they don't like, while letting folks they like get off the hook. It's not the rightness or the wrongness of the law which is at issue, but the inconsistency of application. If we decide that speeding is "wrong", the penalties for doing so should be applied evenly.

Similarly, if we decide that a statement like Reid's is wrong, it should be penalized politically regardless of who says it. The GOP does this. It does this regardless of it's own personal position on the issue of political correctness. The Dems apparently don't. And it's not just this issue upon which they are remarkably inconsistent.



But you have never in your life condemned the Democrats for taking the politically correct approach when it's a GOP member who said or did something questionable, have you?

Unless you're saying that it's ok to support a party when it does something you don't agree with on the grounds that it's politically valuable for "your side"? Do you think it's ok for a party to do this? I don't...



I'm not "making excuses" Joph. I personally disagree with political correctness. However, I acknowledge that if we're going to apply such things to politicians, we should do so fairly and evenly.

For me, it's not about the "side". It's about the rules of political life. I lament the fact that an affair is considered a career-killer for politicians because I honestly think that it shouldn't matter. However, I will absolutely point out hypocrisy when this only affects GOP members who have affairs, while Democrats are often let off the hook in terms of political condemnation.

And no. I'm not going to admonish GOP members who demand the resignation of a Democrat who has an affair. Because to me it's "fair" to do that if the Democrats demanded the resignation of a member of the GOP who did the same thing. We should have the same rules for both sides Joph. I hold my own party to the same standards that I hold your party to. I may not agree with those standards, but if those are the standards applied to the GOP, I believe it should be applied to the Dems.



It's "the Dems do it when it hurts the GOP, so it's fair that the GOP can do it when it hurts the Dems". Neither you nor I make up the rules of political life Joph. However, those rules ought to be applied evenly and fairly. Unfortunately, far too often the Left looks the other way when it's one of their own breaking the rules...

Those are all different issues and could be a topic of themselves Joph. None of them particularly touch on the question of political correctness. Look. I'm not going to deny that political parties take opportunities to "score points" politically. But if they do so in ways which are consistent, then there's nothing wrong with that.

Are you really opposed to the GOP taking the positions they have because their positions didn't have merit, or because they would allow them to "score points". I suspect the latter. Which is a valid position for you to take btw, but it undermines your attempts at feigning shock about the GOP reactions...



I suppose the distinction between explaining why you hold a position and "making excuses" is a fine point for you.


Look. I don't support scoring points for the sake of scoring points. But neither do I condemn an action purely because it'll score points for the person doing it. Doing so is ridiculous. It leads us to conclusions like we should never attempt to succeed in life because we might be rewarded for our success. Nope. Don't do well on your tests in school. That could be seen as just "scoring points" with your teacher in order to get a good grade...

You have to judge each action on its own merits Joph. And in this particular case, I see the GOP acting consistently with regard to responses to statements made by political figures which appear discriminatory towards a minority group. That's the important thing here. We can go around and around as to whether we *should* condemn politicians who make statements like those made by Reid, but the reality is that our politicians always do when it's from a Republican, but apparently only the GOP does when it's a Democrat doing it.


The hypocrisy and inconsistency is on your party Joph. Not mine.



Nice non-response. Can you find an example of me holding the Dems to a different standard?

Cause I've got an example of you doing that right in this thread. Funny that...



But it *is* true in this case, Joph. That's the big glaring hole in your argument. In this specific case, you know, I know, and everyone on this forum knows, that if a Republican had made those statements, your party would be all over him for it and the GOP would be joining them in their condemnation. Right or wrong, we all know that would be the case. Heck. You haven't denied it would be the case, and neither has anyone else.


So it is absolutely true to say that in the case in front of us, the GOP is being consistent, and the Democrats are being inconsistent. Everything else you bring up is kinda secondary to that basic fact.

Racial sterotypes and assumptions are more common in people of a certain age, who lived during the Civil Rights movement. For this reason, and the sheer fact that it's a lightning rod, people need to watch what they say. Still, people are people and they can't be "on" 24/7 as hard as they try.

Now Lott had ****** up once before, going on Armstrong Williams and comparing homosexuality to kleptomania and alcoholism and saying that it was a sin. Despite being a seasoned legislator, he should have known better, since even MI has gays. Both times, the insult was to a general group of people.


As for Reid, in my view his insult was to one person(which he's done before, with Dubya and his mom), and the insult isn't even as grave as saying you heard someone's mother was a ***** and you think he takes after her, just worded stupidly. That said, I don't understand all the Pubbie bluster (unless it is just for political points) since thinking strategically, no one actually wants him to step down, as he's way more conservative than the next guy in line. Hell, it's just the plebes anyway. McConnell isn't touching this whole mess with a 10-foot pole.

Not exactly. I'm arguing that both parties engage in shenanigans and Gbaji is insisting that the GOP doesn't because they're so very good & pure and, if it looks like they did, it's only because a Democratic leprechaun tricked them into it.

It's a wonder he made it out of high school without getting pregnant.

Yay for example.com!

But it's so cute!

Done. Good article.

Even though you STOLE it...