The recent resignation/termination of the president and vice president of National Public Radio (NPR) for their comments regarding Republicans, mainly Tea Partiers and evangelical Christians, brings into question a worrisome nonsense approach to the state of affairs of contemporary politics.
Why does speaking general truths have such dire consequences, whereas lying and subterfuge are acceptable forms of political stratagem? This makes no sense. Isn’t it a double standard to expect one group to be on the up and up while another group is using subterfuge to expose opponents?
From the videotaped meeting regarding some of what the NPR Vice President said: “The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved in people’s personal lives and very fundamental Christian – I wouldn’t even call it Christian – it’s this weird Evangelical kind of move. The current Republican Party is not really the Republican Party, it’s been hijacked by this group – that is – the radical, racist, Islamophobic, tea party people. And not just Islamophobic but really xenophobic, I mean basically they are, they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-American gun-toting. I mean, it’s scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people. … Now I’ll talk personally, as opposed to wearing my NPR hat, it feels to me as though there is a real anti-intellectual move on the part of a significant part of the Republican Party. In my personal opinion, Liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced than conservatives. … Well, to me, this is representative of the thing that I, I guess, I am most disturbed by and disappointed by in this country, which is that the educated, so-called elite in this country is too small a percentage of the population so that you have this very large uneducated part of the population that carries these ideas. It’s much more about anti-intellectualism than it is about a politic[s]…”
Sure, there’s a problem with making sweeping statements about folks. But NPR did not take a public stance in their comments; they were secretly recorded saying such comments in a back room meeting. This goes on a lot in business, politics, et cetera. In any event, what is wrong with calling something the way it is? Wouldn’t most Tea Partiers agree they are conservative as opposed to liberal? And what does “conservative” mean? Wouldn’t many of these same folks agree they are also evangelical Christians, if they are? Wouldn’t many of them be against intellectualism or science because it goes against the literal translation of the Bible? And wouldn’t many of those same folks be against Islam and Muslims because of a fear that Islam would supplant Christianity in the U.S.A.? While I don’t think all Republicans, Neo Conservatives and evangelical Christians are xenophobic, or racists, in my opinion, their being open to foreign ideas isn’t necessarily their strong point. Would it serve their interests? Why is it that evangelical Christians can promote their beliefs but if others (mainly liberals) define them as doing so – it’s wrong and offensive? If evangelical Christians are going to live by “the Word,” and part of that is to proselytize, then don’t deny that is a basic motive. If Neo Conservatives (of both parties) are interested in influencing our personal lives for whatever reasons: financial, health, law, politics, et cetera, then own up to it. We’d all be a lot better off with speaking truths. This whole finger pointing is juvenile and likely going to achieve nothing more than creating a deeper chasm in a burgeoning culture war.
When we as Americans start attacking bedrock foundations such as Bert and Ernie and Sesame Street, there’s something worrisome about that. Republicans claim that NPR should not be subsidized by tax payer money because it’s a liberal outlet, fine; but what about faith-based initiatives? Should tax payers be subsidizing the proselytizing of Christian, or any other, religious beliefs? Isn’t it a double standard to be against public financing for education while at the same time support subsidizing for religious endeavors? What about separation of church and state? Have we lost sight of why this is so important? What about the Constitution, our Bill of Rights and our civil liberties? Aren’t these important, too?
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment