It isn't that he posed a question or attempted to make an ideological stance. It is that he did so without thinking about what he supposedly believes. As Ta-Nehisi Coates points out, he failed to make the argument.
Coates:
When I wake up in the morning to write, I don't think about how I can make the world "less racist." I think racism is a cancer, but I also believe in having the argument. I wonder about Brown vs. the Board. I wonder about housing desegregation in Detroit during the '50s, even as I have no better solutions.
What I'm driving at is raising the question about methods is never wrong, to the contrary it's essential. That process is undermined by people who raise those questions, without having thought about them, without being able to speak to their nuances, and are mostly concerned with tribal signaling. People were dragged from their homes, raped and murdered over civil rights. Talk about it, by all means. But talk about it with the intellectual seriousness it deserves. This is not a third grade science fair project.
Right. This applies to the Sarah Palin's of the world, her loyal followers and the Tax Tea Party movement as well. It is the embracing of sound bites and talking points over the substance and effectiveness of policy that corrodes our national discourse. Paul is but an insight to the more concerning issue at hand.
I am Frank Chow and I approved this message
No comments:
Post a Comment