Townhall...
Enough with Liberal
Name Calling
By Carrie Lukas
In January, the assassination attempt on Representative Gabrielle
Giffords by a mentally ill assailant became an occasion for media
elites to preen about the need for more civil political discourse.
Somehow, the liberals fashioned a connection between Rush Limbaugh’s
radio show and Jared Loughner, despite the complete lack of any
evidence that Loughner had ever listened to conservative radio or was
anything other than an apolitical madman.
The media’s interest in the pressing need for more civil politic
discourse was short lived. They yawned weeks later at the violent
rhetoric used in Wisconsin by union protestors and politicians in the
state of Wisconsin—even when some making implicit threats had declared
such language off-limits in the wake of the Giffords shooting. Evidence
of profound hypocrisy bored our media watchdogs.
It’s clear that the idea of civility is applied selectively. Those
charged with the weighty task of setting the rules of
political-correctness—liberal media figures, academia, leftist
politicians—see their own as sufficiently enlightened so they can be
exempt from p.c.’s uncomfortable constraints. Thus National Public
Radio can fire Juan Williams for carefully admitting to associating
Muslims with terrorism, but overlook when Nina Totenberg wishes for
Jesse Helm’s grandchildren to contract AIDS.
The double standard was made clear again last week when Ed Schultz, a
liberal talk show host on MSNBC, called conservative radio host Laura
Ingraham a “slut”. This wasn’t just a slip of the tongue, but a term he
used twice to describe the accomplished lawyer and Supreme Court clerk
turned conservative icon. The reaction? Schultz apologized on air, was
given a week long suspension by MSNBC, and the scandal quickly
dissipated.
One can only imagine how different the reaction and coverage would have
been had a conservative television personality—say, a Sean Hannity—used
a similar term to describe a liberal woman, such as a Rachel Maddow.
His quick dismal would most certainly have been followed by endless
ruminations about the latent misogyny riddling the conservative
movement, indeed, anyone who dares classify him or herself Republican.
Speeches of apology would have to be made not just by the man who had
issued a slur, but by anyone who’d said a good word about him or given
him the implicit endorsement of appearing on his show.
Yet just days after the liberal icon Schultz calls Ingraham a slut, it
was the head of the Democratic National Committee, Congresswoman Debbie
Wasserman-Schlutz, who charged that Republicans are “anti-woman” and
waging a “war on woman” in Congress. The basis for her charge? The
Republican push to defund Planned Parenthood and cut other spending.
People can disagree about these proposals’ merits, but my
kindergartener could tell them that name calling isn’t the way to win
arguments. Several Republican female Congresswomen responded with a
statement condemning Wasserman-Schlutz language, and explaining how
they believe their agenda actually advances women’s interests:
Republican women fight every day for the women who can’t start a
business because of burdensome taxes and regulations, for the women who
worry that we are capping their children’s future and trading it to
China in exchange for cheap loans, for the women who deserve to make
their own health care choices, and for this year’s young women
graduates who are entering a job market stagnated by Washington-driven
uncertainty.
Well put. Yet Republicans shouldn’t have to respond to charges that
they have launched a “war” on half of the American population. To the
contrary, Ms. Wasserman-Schlutz should be facing questions about her
careless slander of a political party. Republican women shouldn’t just
offer evidence against the offensive charge, they should be demanding
an apology.
Media elites who claim they want a more civil discourage should begin
by setting some ground rules. Having the right to free speech (which of
course Ed Schultz has) doesn’t mean you have the right to your own talk
show. Calling a pundit with whom you disagree a “slut” should be out of
bounds for those who want to be considered in the business of serious
news. We should also expect our political leaders to debate policies on
their merits, rather than name calling. And yes, those standards should
apply to conservatives and liberals alike.
Read it at Townhall
|
