© 1983 by Matt Groening
Posted on 12/10/2003 10:54:31 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
No, I'm not in favor of bigotry itself. That attitude, wherever it is found, is a cancer on the American body politic. But I am in favor of the recapture of the word ''bigotry'' from those who hold it hostage, and its frequent and vigorous application wherever it is earned.
Ask most people what bigotry means, and the dominant answer will be that it is ''discrimination against blacks (and other people of color) by whites.'' A few will give a broader and better answer, that it is ''discrimination against people of different races or religions than yours.'' That's better, but it is still a far cry from what bigotry really means.
When in doubt, I resort to the Oxford English Dictionary. It is thorough, and researched to the point to make your head spin. Here's what the OED says about bigotry:
Bigotry means ''the condition of a bigot; obstinate or unenlightened attachment to a particular creed, opinion, system or party.'' The word ''bigot'' goes all the way back to Chaucer, as a ''hypocritical professor of religion,'' or ''superstitious adherent.'' The alert reader will note that neither word makes any direct reference to race, sex, or nation of origin, to choose a phrase not entirely at random.
Bigotry is about ideas. It marks the point where education has failed, and truth has been defeated in the mind of the bigot. In a gentle way, Will Rogers addressed the nature of bigotry in America. He said, ''The problem is not what we don't know. It is what we do know that isn't true.'' But bigotry is not a gentle problem.
Let's begin with Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. The internal memos to and from his staff as a Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee demonstrate that Kennedy is a bigot. One of those memos urged an all-out fight to prevent Miguel Estrada from being confirmed to the U.S. Circuit Court for the D.C. Circuit, because he is ''A Latino'' and if appointed to that court, he might later ''be nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court.''
One of these memos, from a representative of the NAACP, said in part, ''we can't repeat the mistakes we made with Clarence Thomas.'' Another memo to Senator Kennedy urged him to make sure the Senate did not confirm any more judges for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, until the Michigan affirmative action cases had gotten safely through that Court.
The bottom line of all this is bigotry – based on Kennedy's firm belief that he knows better than the President, better than a majority of the other Senators, and better than most judges now serving on the federal bench, how the judiciary should handle present and future cases. Kennedy's mind is slammed shut. No new information from any other source will be allowed admission. And like most bigots, he dimly realizes that his views will not survive in the real world if openly examined. So he is willing to use force and trickery to uphold those views.
It is extremely sad to see the NAACP in the middle of Kennedy's bigotry. For almost a century, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, as it was then known, did excellent work in many ways to fight racial bigotry in the United States. But today, the NAACP has forgotten its original mission, and has become a bigoted organization itself. Its bigotry is not racial. It vigorously attacks blacks as well as whites who question either the intelligence or the effectiveness of the NAACP's hard-wired alliance with the left wing of the Democrat Party.
But the tell-tale signs of bigotry are stamped all over the NAACP's public positions. On school vouchers and other educational reforms, on welfare reform, on judicial appointments and other issues, the NAACP is aggressively and deliberately rejecting evidence that its own positions are self-defeating. Go back to the definitions: isn't the NAACP demonstrating ''obstinate or unenlightened attachment to a particular ... party''?
Why should an organization, especially one with such a long and excellent history, act in a way to harm the interests of the very people it claims to represent? The answer is found in a statement by Professor Peter Drucker, one of the giants in the fields of business, economics and politics. He observed, ''Once an organization exceeds 1,000 people, its first purpose becomes self-preservation.'' In short, the NAACP is now led by people who see their own organizational survival in a hard alliance with the left wing of the Democrat Party. Therefore, it becomes irrelevant whether those positions cause direct harm to those people it allegedly supports.
No discussion of bigotry would be complete without addressing the role of the press. And the first media outlet to examine is the self-described ''newspaper of record,'' the New York Times. I have been reading that newspaper for forty-five years. It used to be a great paper. It still is, but only in certain areas.
Concerning art, architecture, restaurants, fashion, and many other areas, the Times still is the leading newspaper in the world. But when the discussion turns to politics, either politics directly or politics as reflected in such areas as books, movies, or social policy, the Times has become a bigoted newspaper.
Its coverage of Senator Kennedy, the Senate Judiciary Committee, the judicial nominations, and the NAACP, all demonstrate this bigotry. The Times was slow even to recognize that these memos within the Committee and to the Committee from the NAACP even existed. Once coverage by other media forced the Times to take notice of these memos, its articles were modest and well-buried. Instead of the front-page coverage which it gives to memos embarrassing to the Bush Administration, the coverage of these memos has been short articles on inside pages (next to the pet obituaries).
And even in this grudging and limited coverage, the Times has given equal time to the mantra from Senator Harry Reid and others that the really important issue is how these memos got leaked, rather than what they say and whether they are legitimate. The editors and reporters of the Times cannot bring themselves to discuss the facts of this issue fairly and fully and allow its readers to reach their own conclusions.
To do that, the Times would necessarily cause harm to the left wing of the Democrat Party. Since it is the viewpoint of the Times that only those politicians would lead the nation in the preferred and proper direction, its reporting cannot be allowed to harm that overarching cause.
This is not, of course, the only example of bigotry by the New York Times. It regularly publishes the columns of Paul Krugman, a professor of economics who has repeatedly gotten his numbers wrong. An economist who does not get his numbers straight, and always makes his errors in a single political direction, is himself a bigot. And since the Times is aware of his errors and still keeps publishing him, they share his bigotry.
The Times shows, in politics and all subjects related to politics, ''obstinate or unenlightened attachment to a particular ... party.'' Paul Krugman does the same. I cannot say the same of Maureen Dowd, also a Times columnist. Her goal in her columns is first to be cute, and second to attack the Bush Administration. However, her columns are all over the lot. That is a clue that she doesn't actually know what her opinions are. She may be obstinate and unenlightened, but she lacks the critical part of having consistent opinions to be attached to.
Across the board in American politics, there is a tendency to more and more bigotry. This goes hand in hand with the tendency to deal in sound bites and slogans, in an almost ''fact-free'' way, as Dave Barry would say. And the politicians would have a much harder time getting away with this, if the press did not play into their hands.
Whenever the press covers any story as he-said, she-said, they put quotes from the opposing sides in the article or broadcast, as if that were full reporting. Faced with opposing politicians, like opposing lawyers in a trial, it is a near certainly that one of them (at least) is lying. The only way to make people pay a price, when they lie in public, is with independently researched facts. And that means the investment of shoe leather by able reporters, supported by editors who know what good journalism demands.
The bigots themselves will always take the position, ''Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up.'' That is the essence of bigotry – expressing and promoting opinions in the face of contrary facts. That is trained into trial lawyers. Perhaps it cannot be trained out of most politicians. But the last wall of defense against a tide of bigotry on hundreds of issues is the press.
When the press shares in the bigotry, the only solution is long-term. It is the steady decline of well-placed bigots as the people themselves find the facts on their own, and realize they are being mislead by the highly-placed spokesmen. This, too, is demonstrated by the judicial memo flap. It is alive and well on the Internet, thus giving the mainstream media a series of well-deserved black eyes.
Are you listening, Peter, Dan, and Tom? If you aren't, are the officers of your corporations listening? If they aren't, perhaps the stockholders are listening to the sounds of channels being switched off and advertising revenues dropping. Bigotry is morally wrong. It is dangerous to the Republic. But perhaps the ultimate solution in a free market economy is that bigotry is bad business.
In the future I will use the word bigot much more often. I will use it in circumstances that have nothing to do with race, counting on my able readers to remember what it really means. Bigotry is a solid word with a broad application. It should be used much more often – against any person or organization which has earned that label. I recommend it to all who care about the truth, and care about the future of the Republic.
John Armor is an author and columnist on politics and history. He currently has an exploratory committee to run for Congress in North Carolina. You can visit his website at: http://www.armorforcongress.com
© 1983 by Matt Groening
OK. I'll be the first to say it: We have 5 BIGOTS on the US Supreme Court.
John / Billybob
In other words - as indicated by your statement not once but twice - you are a man of honour and convictions. Despite the grievous decision arrived at by the justices, you remain steadfast to your client, and then will remain faithful to yourself. I have that much more respect for you than I ever did for the justices.
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
Umm, I dunno. But this may have something to do with it...
I agree. 51 GOP Senators are not enough to be a majority. We can give the GOP a real majority in 2004.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.