Both Vivian Paige and Conaway Haskins make a plea — one that deserves to be read by all:
As two black bloggers in the Virginia political blogosphere, we bring a unique perspective to the conversation regarding race that swirls around us. Each of our families have been in Virginia for more than 150 years, so we are well acquainted with the both with Virginia’s sordid past and its slow, steady move towards inclusion that has occurred in our lifetimes.
It comes as no surprise to us, then, that both candidates have used racial epithets in the past. To argue otherwise is to deny the realities of life in Virginia and our country. Inquiries into such behavior serve to shine light on those incidents and provide an opportunity for discerning whether they hold such sentiments today. It is not an irrelevant conversation, nor is it the only thing that matters in determining who should be the next junior senator from Virginia.
Some have used this inquiry as an opportunity to throw around racial epithets themselves. We contend that doing so is reflective of the lack of racial sensitivity that both candidates have indicated that they had in the past. Further, we contend that this desensitizes the readers to the real issues of race that are still with us. We find such behavior unacceptable and implore our colleagues to refrain from engaging in such behavior. While campaigns are willing to exploit the issue of race (and its companion issues of ethnicity and gender), the Virginia political blogosphere should not be so eager to do so. (emphasis added)
To call for a complete end to such a discussion would be not only naive but hypocritical of us, and we are not proposing that. What we do ask is that the level of discourse be raised a notch, always mindful of the possible effects of such polarizing rhetoric not only through November 7, but beyond.
Well intentioned. Would raising it a notch include, for example, stop calling a candidate and a political party ‘racist’?
A novel idea… though I wouldn’t advise anyone to hold their breath.
JAB: by extension, it would also have to include not calling a candidate sexist and his party a bunch of commies.
Shaun: Touche.
Conaway, I would agree with sexist – although I don’t put that in the same category as the Scarlett R. I’m not sure what is or isn’t ‘sexist’ and don’t care that much since I don’t use the term.
As for Commie – that’s tough. When a Liberal Human Secularist agrees with the fundamental ideas and the verbatim words of a Communist Human Secularist, the degrees of difference over what the dictatorship of the proletariat should look like vary in rhetoric more than in substance.
Break – thinking about this… do you remember that great Saturday Night comedy sketch with Richard Pryor in a job interview (from the 70s, you would have seen it in a classic rerun)? This mud-slinging reminds me of it.
Aw come on, Conaway.
I like calling the other party a bunch of commies. It’s my favorite word…
I’ll echo that — anyone who phrases the body politic in the tems of class warfare and wealth redistribution deserves to be called a commie, Marxist, socialist, etc.
JAB: Progressives do this, liberals don’t. Another distinction to add to the list.
Yeah, but attacking every pro-government move as communist, socialist, etc is simply wrong. You can be a good-government, pro-market liberal, as Shaun would hopefully acknowledge.
I’m trying to remember the Richard Pryor sketch. I’ll find it.
I think we could all agree that there are certain things government is obligated to provide and do.
Form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty….
That sort of thing.
Where liberals (and yes, even conservatives) go wrong is where we get to what government is to provide vs. what we are to promote.
When we start describing those things as part of class warfare, or siding with the perogatives of society over the rights of individual freedom (socialism vs. individualism in a nutshell), that’s where I have a problem with other political philosophies.
But now I’m pontificating.
Where liberals (and yes, even conservatives) go wrong is where we get to what government is to provide vs. what we are to promote.
Remember that you wrote this. I’m going to hold you to it
Heh. I would expect nothing less!
Conaway, ask an old fart about the Richard Pryor skit on word association in a job interview. Classic.
I don’t know what is ‘pro’ government. True, every government folly isn’t Commie.
The Republicans pushing for Regional Governments are Commies, just fixated on greedy power.
oops ‘aren’t’