Al Cross Continues His Crusade To Get Kentucky's Tin Foil Hatters To "See The Light". I Say: Good Luck, Man. More Grease To Your Writing Elbows!
Obama column stirred reactions
It's nice to know that people read what you write. It would be even nicer if all understood it. But sometimes even misunderstandings can lead to more dialogue, and to greater understanding.
I'd like to think that about my last column, which decried the ignorance, suspicion, fear and hatred of President Obama that I said has been “much in evidence this month” in Kentucky. It got more reaction from readers than anything I have written in 35 years of writing about politics in this state.
The reaction was about evenly divided. There was a lot of heat, but also some light.
Perhaps the first online comment, and the first reply to it, summed up the reaction:
A reader wrote, “It is not hate to disagree with someone's ideas.”
“Agreed,” another replied, “but you can hardly say that a sizeable chunk of these people don't also just hate him outright.”
Contrary to the reaction of the first correspondent and a few others, the column didn't call all opponents of Obama ignorant or hateful. The hateful appear to account for a small minority of the opponents, though they have received disproportionate media attention, making them look like a “sizeable chunk,” especially to Obama supporters.
Hate often starts with ignorance, which leads to suspicion, which leads to fear, which leads to hate. Our state and nation have too much of all four right now. That has led to a marked decline in the civility needed to find common ground, and that should concern all people of good will, regardless of their political beliefs.
Your columnist is not without blame. My apologies to state Republican Chairman Steve Robertson, who applied the adjective “creepy” to the plans surrounding Obama's speech to school children, not to the speech itself.
The most interesting and intense reactions came from people who thought their opposition to Obama was being equated with racism, though the column made only a glancing reference to race, saying his campaign left room for the weeds of ignorance, suspicion, fear and hate to grow wrote off Kentucky after exit polls showed much of the opposition to him in last year's Democratic primary election was racially based.
Some read “hate” as a synonym for “racism,” which it often is, but not primarily in this case, I think. My life's experience and my recent mail tell me that there are plenty of people who are completely unmoved by race but have been whipped up by misinformation and demagoguery into hating what they think Obama stands for: Marxism, socialism, fascism, or other such fanciful notions.
Better-informed opponents of Obama are simply concerned that he is a decidedly liberal President whose fiscal policies are dangerous. They don't like being lumped in with racists, and they shouldn't be. But they need to realize they are on the same side of the political battlefield with them, and do what they can to marginalize them.
At the same time, those on Obama's side need to think hard before playing the race card.
Former President Jimmy Carter, 84, was off base when he said “an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity” for Obama “is based on the fact that he is a black man.” Even if you very narrowly defined “intense animosity” and applied a very low threshold for “overwhelming,” that still might not be true.
Carter spoke from his experience as a politician who advocated civil rights in the face of entrenched race hatred, but he had no current data to support his assertion. And even if such data existed, playing the race card does little if anything to advance the debate about the issues facing the nation.
When the debate devolves into folks on the extremes yelling at each other, it's pretty hard to find common ground for the common good. Those who have mixed and moderate views are unwilling or unable to make themselves heard. That was the ultimate point of the column, and of this one.
Thanks to all who took time to write. I especially appreciated the comments of Ken Stammerman of Louisville, a Democrat and former State Department officer in the Middle East:
“I am concerned that the coarseness and ignorant speech of the Obama haters is operating as a kind of Gresham's law, the bad driving out the good at least on the right, where responsible conservative voices are silent. The crazies and racists go to the fore when they think they have numbers on their side, and in Kentucky, they may have the numbers. I've seen hatred worsen when otherwise responsible political leaders let it grow or even feed it for temporary political advantage. Your colleagues with experience of the Middle East conflicts can add to what I've seen in places like Hebron and Jerusalem.”
Al Cross, former Courier-Journal political writer, is director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues in the School of Journalism and Telecommunications at the University of Kentucky. His e-mail address is al.cross@uky.edu. His views are his own, not those of the University of Kentucky.
It's nice to know that people read what you write. It would be even nicer if all understood it. But sometimes even misunderstandings can lead to more dialogue, and to greater understanding.
I'd like to think that about my last column, which decried the ignorance, suspicion, fear and hatred of President Obama that I said has been “much in evidence this month” in Kentucky. It got more reaction from readers than anything I have written in 35 years of writing about politics in this state.
The reaction was about evenly divided. There was a lot of heat, but also some light.
Perhaps the first online comment, and the first reply to it, summed up the reaction:
A reader wrote, “It is not hate to disagree with someone's ideas.”
“Agreed,” another replied, “but you can hardly say that a sizeable chunk of these people don't also just hate him outright.”
Contrary to the reaction of the first correspondent and a few others, the column didn't call all opponents of Obama ignorant or hateful. The hateful appear to account for a small minority of the opponents, though they have received disproportionate media attention, making them look like a “sizeable chunk,” especially to Obama supporters.
Hate often starts with ignorance, which leads to suspicion, which leads to fear, which leads to hate. Our state and nation have too much of all four right now. That has led to a marked decline in the civility needed to find common ground, and that should concern all people of good will, regardless of their political beliefs.
Your columnist is not without blame. My apologies to state Republican Chairman Steve Robertson, who applied the adjective “creepy” to the plans surrounding Obama's speech to school children, not to the speech itself.
The most interesting and intense reactions came from people who thought their opposition to Obama was being equated with racism, though the column made only a glancing reference to race, saying his campaign left room for the weeds of ignorance, suspicion, fear and hate to grow wrote off Kentucky after exit polls showed much of the opposition to him in last year's Democratic primary election was racially based.
Some read “hate” as a synonym for “racism,” which it often is, but not primarily in this case, I think. My life's experience and my recent mail tell me that there are plenty of people who are completely unmoved by race but have been whipped up by misinformation and demagoguery into hating what they think Obama stands for: Marxism, socialism, fascism, or other such fanciful notions.
Better-informed opponents of Obama are simply concerned that he is a decidedly liberal President whose fiscal policies are dangerous. They don't like being lumped in with racists, and they shouldn't be. But they need to realize they are on the same side of the political battlefield with them, and do what they can to marginalize them.
At the same time, those on Obama's side need to think hard before playing the race card.
Former President Jimmy Carter, 84, was off base when he said “an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity” for Obama “is based on the fact that he is a black man.” Even if you very narrowly defined “intense animosity” and applied a very low threshold for “overwhelming,” that still might not be true.
Carter spoke from his experience as a politician who advocated civil rights in the face of entrenched race hatred, but he had no current data to support his assertion. And even if such data existed, playing the race card does little if anything to advance the debate about the issues facing the nation.
When the debate devolves into folks on the extremes yelling at each other, it's pretty hard to find common ground for the common good. Those who have mixed and moderate views are unwilling or unable to make themselves heard. That was the ultimate point of the column, and of this one.
Thanks to all who took time to write. I especially appreciated the comments of Ken Stammerman of Louisville, a Democrat and former State Department officer in the Middle East:
“I am concerned that the coarseness and ignorant speech of the Obama haters is operating as a kind of Gresham's law, the bad driving out the good at least on the right, where responsible conservative voices are silent. The crazies and racists go to the fore when they think they have numbers on their side, and in Kentucky, they may have the numbers. I've seen hatred worsen when otherwise responsible political leaders let it grow or even feed it for temporary political advantage. Your colleagues with experience of the Middle East conflicts can add to what I've seen in places like Hebron and Jerusalem.”
Al Cross, former Courier-Journal political writer, is director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues in the School of Journalism and Telecommunications at the University of Kentucky. His e-mail address is al.cross@uky.edu. His views are his own, not those of the University of Kentucky.
Labels: General information
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 8:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home