In his WaPo column yesterday, Richard Cohen noted the hate-emails he received over his critiques of Stephen Colbert’s performance at the WH Correspondents’ Dinner
The response to Cohen’s column from Digby at Hullabaloo:
In case Cohen hasn’t noticed nobody on the f*cking planet likes squishy faux liberal courtiers. There’s no political downside to hating Richard Cohen.
First off, that hardly qualifies as constructive discourse, or an argument. The irony is, however, that he is making Cohen’s point: that there is a great deal of anger in the leftish side of our politics these days and who are feeling it seem to think that there is some odd virute in it (and, I would add there are plenty of angry people on the rightish side as well–they just aren’t concerning Cohen at the moment).
I fail to see how anything any columnist has done would justify hatred and vitriol. Well beyond that: I fail to see how democratic political discourse is compatible with that type of rhetoric.
John Cole of Balloon Juice pretty much nails it:
There is, apparently, no ‘political downside’ to being an asshole, so many on the left and the right will continue to urge people to behave like one. Something upsets you- get ten thousand people to fire off vulgar e-mails. Really- it convinces people your position is right. [/sarcasm]
Yup, nothing like some lovely ranting to convince others of the error of their ways.
May 10th, 2024 at 9:35 am
Amazingly, Cohen falls into the same trap, albeit not quite as extreme, when he says this – “Now, though, that gullibility is being matched by war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies.”
It has become commonplace to characterize someone whose views differ from your own as your enemy. That makes it easier to justify the kind of vitriol he is experiencing.
May 10th, 2024 at 10:09 am
A fair point.
And I concur: the usage of “enemy” as a common noun to describe those with whom we disagree politically has become far too commmonplace of late.
May 10th, 2024 at 10:21 am
The truth is not left or right and it doesn’t have good manners. The left is justiviably insensed at being triangulated off the playing field by supposed liberals.
All of you who did not find Colbert at all funny need to get lessons in satire. If you want to understand this better, you will read the posts and comments at Wealth Bondage.
This message provided as a public service to the humor impared.
May 10th, 2024 at 10:28 am
For what it is worth, I find Colbert to be funny and even found some of his WHCD routine to be funny. It wasn’t as funny as many thought it was.
It certainly wasn’t so funny as to justify the praise (and the bile against those who criticize) that it has received in some quarters.
The truth may not always be polite, and you may have a point on the triangulation issue (although the truth of the matter is, pure ideology doesn’t sell too well in US politics), but vitriol and anger as a regular mode of behavior rarely accomplishes anything. Indeed, it is typically counter-productive.
May 10th, 2024 at 10:40 am
So, are we going to debate levels of funny? That isn’t really the point, is it?
Ok, I’ll have to post a couple of specific links, The first addresses the issue of why some find it funny and some do not without getting into degree.
http://www.wealthbondage.com/2006/04/what_are_you_la.html
This one addresses the ussue of decorum and good manners.
http://www.wealthbondage.com/2006/05/good_manners_as.html
Ok, one more on decorum in philanthropy:
http://www.gifthub.org/2006/05/destitute_advoc.html
Tutor addresses the issue of vitriol and anger as well. You are right that it is a weak instrument. Satire is better, but few have the skill to pull it off. Colbert was masterful in presenting his satire with the targets in the room and not letting them see him sweat. The hushed response of the audience is telling (see first link).
May 10th, 2024 at 11:01 am
Actually, no: I wasn’t trying to debate levels of funny. I was actually agreeing with you that Colbert is/can be funny. All I was trying to point out was that I wasn’t defending Cohen because I was anti-Colbert.
And my issue with vitriol and anger is with Digby, not Colbert (just to make sure I’m being clear).
May 10th, 2024 at 12:19 pm
Fair enough, then the links to decorum are the more relevant. The mark of the moderate style is the call to be reasonable and not to raise one’s voice. Appropriate for someone in power, for example a judge addressing the court, but here in the rough and tumble of civic debate to call for moderation is to call for silence from someone who feels oppressed. You can argue it isn’t a good strategy, but when you dismiss the speaker because of it is a debate limiting move.