Greg Sargent wrote How Obama got conservatives to listen to him. "It's true that Obama stated clearly there that rhetoric didn't cause the shooting. But these lines are best understood as a set up to the larger point that followed, which is that the shooting confers a moral obligation upon all of us to improve the tone and integrity of our discourse. If Obama had delivered this latter message in isolation, without the set up, conservatives would have rejected it as political, as criticism directed at them."
I don't disagree but I have two points. First , by writing this publicly you feed the right and make it less likely they'll listen.
Second, by writing this publicly you miss Obama's point. Writing "Obama's insistence that we improve the discourse for the sake of our children and our country was unmistakably aimed mostly at them." is not more civil or at least it's clearly not less partisan. It's not threatening violence, but it's not going to change anyone's mind. So what's the point other than to produce column inches?
It's like a child after he's been scolded: 'We both have to be nicer but you have to be even more nice.' The more and more I read the pundits write about this and miss the point, the more I'm reminded of a Monty Python skit like the Life of Brian.
No comments:
Post a Comment