Something I've learned over the years is that anytime someone gets called an "-ist" of any kind, we should start paying attention because someone is trying to shut them down and keep them from saying something they are afraid people might listen to. Again, this is something that reminds me of something I read from author Paul Graham (http://paulgraham.com) from his essay "What You Can't Say" (http://paulgraham.com/say.html):
"The word "defeatist", for example, has no particular political connotations now. But in Germany in 1917 it was a weapon, used by Ludendorff in a purge of those who favored a negotiated peace. At the start of World War II it was used extensively by Churchill and his supporters to silence their opponents. In 1940, any argument against Churchill's aggressive policy was "defeatist". Was it right or wrong? Ideally, no one got far enough to ask that."
Likewise, when someone gets called a "racist", they get backed into the corner of having to defend their views. Are their thoughts based on learned prejudice? Or are their conclussions the result of taking an honest look at the facts of a given situation? Again, "ideally, no one gets far enough to ask." Simple trick, just happens to work. Don't like what someone says? Forget debating them on the issue at hand, just name them the heretic du jour (defeatist, racist, "unamerican" for those fond of the MacCarthy era, communist for those who prefer the Cold War era, whatever label you can translate into "heretic" will work.)
So when someone calls the President a "racist", that tells me the President has something to say that this person doesn't want anyone else to listen to. It tells me he has something to say that this person is afraid might be true. And that piques my curiosity and makes me want to take a closer look at the arrest and how it was handled.
It also makes me wonder why the President of the United States is taking such a personal interest in what is by all accounts a very minor arrest that should be handled at the local level, and should that fail work it's way up the judicial branch to the Supreme Court. The Executive Branch shouldn't even be involved in this unless a pardon is being issued. The whole thing seems highly irregular to me.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2009-07-29 05:24 am (UTC)"The word "defeatist", for example, has no particular political connotations now. But in Germany in 1917 it was a weapon, used by Ludendorff in a purge of those who favored a negotiated peace. At the start of World War II it was used extensively by Churchill and his supporters to silence their opponents. In 1940, any argument against Churchill's aggressive policy was "defeatist". Was it right or wrong? Ideally, no one got far enough to ask that."
Likewise, when someone gets called a "racist", they get backed into the corner of having to defend their views. Are their thoughts based on learned prejudice? Or are their conclussions the result of taking an honest look at the facts of a given situation? Again, "ideally, no one gets far enough to ask." Simple trick, just happens to work. Don't like what someone says? Forget debating them on the issue at hand, just name them the heretic du jour (defeatist, racist, "unamerican" for those fond of the MacCarthy era, communist for those who prefer the Cold War era, whatever label you can translate into "heretic" will work.)
So when someone calls the President a "racist", that tells me the President has something to say that this person doesn't want anyone else to listen to. It tells me he has something to say that this person is afraid might be true. And that piques my curiosity and makes me want to take a closer look at the arrest and how it was handled.
It also makes me wonder why the President of the United States is taking such a personal interest in what is by all accounts a very minor arrest that should be handled at the local level, and should that fail work it's way up the judicial branch to the Supreme Court. The Executive Branch shouldn't even be involved in this unless a pardon is being issued. The whole thing seems highly irregular to me.