{"id":2310,"date":"2010-10-25T21:56:31","date_gmt":"2010-10-26T02:56:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=2310"},"modified":"2010-10-25T21:56:31","modified_gmt":"2010-10-26T02:56:31","slug":"taking-back-political-discourse-for-the-nice-bigots","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=2310","title":{"rendered":"Taking back political discourse for the nice bigots"},"content":{"rendered":"

James Gannon used to write for the Wall Street Journal.  Now he writes for American Spectator, and he's bringing his insights about public discourse to bear on the rhetoric leading up to the mid-term elections in his recent "Hayseed Rebellion"<\/a>.  He makes some observations about how his side of the debate is being portrayed:<\/p>\n

\n

If you believe that marriage is exclusively the union of one man and one woman, you are a homophobe and a bigot.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Yep, that's right.  If you believe that, you are a homophobe and a bigot.<\/span>  Where's his problem there?  Be proud of your bigotry, right? (Spoiler alert<\/em>: Gannon says just that.)<\/p>\n

\n

If you believe that the U.S. Constitution means only what it actually says, you are an extremist who ought to be wearing a powdered wig.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Uh, no.  It means that you likely haven't read the Constitution, or that if you have read the Constitution, it's with the radio on,  watching television, while smoking crack.  <\/span>Seriously, even folks who knew the framers had to read the Federalist Papers to understand what's going on, what's being said, at times.  And then there's stare decisis<\/em>.  The world's a complicated place, and that means that 18th century legal principles may be relevant, but not perfect fits every time.  Whatever, maybe powdered wigs are in.<\/p>\n

\n

If you have misgivings about the morality of abortion, or any doubts about the absolute right of a mother to kill her unborn child, you are a religious fanatic, an anti-feminist, and probably a right-wing Catholic.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

OK. I think I get where Gannon's going, now.  He thinks that if he can tell bigots, homophobes, re-enactors of 18th Century legalisms, and religious fanatics that liberals think they are bigots, homophobes, religious fanatics, and general nincompoops, then they'll get mad and act like the bigots, homophobes, fanatics, and nincompoops they are.  And he can do this while noting how generally nice they are, until they've been angered.  Liberals wouldn't like them when they're angry.<\/p>\n

\n

And the docile, largely silent majority of ordinary Americans, who don't relish confrontation and controversy, have allowed these institutional forces to have their way in changing American culture. Up to now. . . . <\/span><\/p>\n

Hey, all you bigots and extremists and homophobes who still believe in all that stuff this country used to stand for<\/strong> — it's time for your Willie Stark moment. It's time to stop being so nice, so naive, so accommodating to the movement that is intent on changing your country radically and permanently. It's time to stand up, speak out, reject the unfair labels being pinned on you and reject the redefinition of everything you care about.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

First of all, I can hardly believe that Gannon thinks that the exemplars of this movement are mostly nice.  They are mostly people who think<\/em> they are nice, but those are often the least nice of all.  Moreover, at this point, who's making these "nice" people angry?  Is it the liberals?  <\/span>Or is it the blowhards who have been telling them what they believe? <\/p>\n

A quick point on analyzing ad populum<\/em> arguments to close.  Many are arguments from authority — the authority of crowds.  In this case, this argument is another form of argument from authority, but one less from numbers.  This form of argument is one from persecution conferring authority.  Here's a rough try at the move:<\/p>\n

P1: People with identity X are widely persecuted for their views<\/p>\n

P2: Persecution is wrong.<\/p>\n

C: It is wrong to persecute identity X.<\/p>\n

P3: If it is wrong to persecute those with identity X, then X must be right.<\/p>\n

C2: X and the views coming with it must be right.<\/p>\n

The problem is all with P3, clearly, as there are plenty of stupid views and identities that have been treated shabbily, but that bad treatment hasn't been instrumental to the improvement of the views.  Wiccans, anyone?  So what is the "Hayseed Rebellion" that James Gannon is suggesting?  Not sure, but I have a feeling it involves voting Republican.  That's a good way to let off some steam, you see. <\/p>\n

Of course, they could try to do things that would make the rest of America not think they are homophobes, bigots, racists, and nincompoops.  But that'd be, you know, accommodationist, and they're done being nice, apparently.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

James Gannon used to write for the Wall Street Journal.  Now he writes for American Spectator, and he's bringing his insights about public discourse to bear on the rhetoric leading up to the mid-term elections in his recent "Hayseed Rebellion".  He makes some observations about how his side of the debate is being portrayed: If … Continue reading Taking back political discourse for the nice bigots<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15,76,54],"tags":[849,780,850,719],"class_list":["post-2310","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-appeal-to-the-people","category-argument-problems","category-things-that-are-false","tag-angry-conservatives","tag-argumentum-ad-populum-fallacious-kind","tag-james-gannon","tag-tea-party"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2310","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2310"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2310\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2314,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2310\/revisions\/2314"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2310"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2310"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2310"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}