It's been a while. I saw a letter to the Clarion Ledger today that got me in the mood to write again. I tried to respond, but it said my post was too long (1,000 char max) so here it is at the end.
Few things are easier and require less intellectual honesty than defining one's enemies. And in his Dec. 9 column ("North, South Republicans may be set for breakup"), Richard Dortch attempted to do just that, using his favorite rhetorical device - the straw man.
Under the faade of explaining a non-existent rift between Northern and Southern Republicans, Dortch falls back on lame stereotypes. Southern members of the GOP, he intones, are "typically poor or working class, less educated, (and) mildly paranoid." Moreover, they don't care about taxes or foreign policy; indeed, they "see homosexuality as a bigger threat to national security than rising sea levels." He even throws in the garden-variety accusations of racism and xenophobia just to hammer home his point.
Wow! One can understand a liberal's bitterness, since Republicans have won seven out of 10 presidential elections since 1968. But is it too much to ask that in his critique of the opposition party, Dortch use an occasional smattering of facts or logic?
The mass exodus of Southern Democrats from their party began in 1968, when it ceased to be the party of FDR, Truman and JFK and became the province of George McGovern and the peaceniks. Contrary to Dortch's assertion, Southerners care a lot about foreign policy now, and they did then. When the Woodstock generation took over the Democratic Party, Southerners were rubbed the wrong way. And rightfully so.
At the national level, Democrats were on the wrong side of the Cold War, favoring a policy of accommodation - if not outright pacifism - in the face of a communist empire that enslaved billions. Today, their ideological descendants have taken that policy to its logical extension: Congressional Democrats want to surrender and proclaim defeat in Iraq. They would grant access to U.S. courts for Taliban and al-Qaida terrorists. Is it any wonder Democratic candidates in the South have a tough time making it to Congress these days?
In a column full of cheap shots and bigoted stereotypes, one other of Dortch's whoppers begs a response: "Southern Republicans retain, to their collective disgrace, a dewy-eyed sentimentality about the slave-driving Old South."
One wonders how many Republicans Dortch knows and regularly talks with to come up with such a sweeping, hateful characterization. Still, it's a tried-and-true liberal tactic. Environmentalists' opponents want to poison the water and pollute the air; those who resist collectivization of the American health care system hate the children, the elderly and the poor; and Republicans in the South would rather be burning crosses.
Hillary Clinton would be proud.
Dortch's column said a lot more about himself and liberals than it did the enemies he sought to demonize. Sadly, he proved that liberals don't want a real debate on the issues. They would rather appeal to fear and emotion than rely on facts and logic.
And in his case, when starting from the premise of loathing his opponents, it's entirely fitting for him to construct a straw man and knock it down with hateful invective.
At the end of his smear job, Mr. Dortch probably felt better about himself. That's sad. But he certainly didn't win any converts.
Ultimately, all he succeeded in doing was insulting the intelligence of other liberals.
Because, who could take any of that seriously?
Kevin Broughton
Madison
Hmm. That was fun. I will have to start writing again.