Not Just Politically Tone Deaf....

Um....



Although I'm sure everybody in "Newt Hampshire" is impressed, that hurt my ears.

But hey - If they cover Newt's solo, as modified by me, I'll still listen to their next video.

Pat Buchanan and the War on Christmas....

Given the number of years Pat Buchanan has been rehearsing and repeating his argument that there's a War on Christmas, you would think that he could by now build a more compelling case. When I received a card from a Jewish friend wishing me "Happy Holidays", for example, that was neither evidence of a war on Christmas or Hanukkah, nor was it evidence of an effort to inject secularity into the holiday or to deny the existence of a Christian majority. It was a demonstration of goodwill and inclusiveness toward people of other religions.

Still, some people aren't happy unless they're imagining themselves at the epicenter of a culture war. Take Pat Buchanan please, for example. Complaining "Whose Country Is It, Anyway", Buchanan whines that the numbers of "Christmas-haters... have grown since the days when it was only the village atheist or the ACLU pest who sought to kill Christmas." To support this claim, he resorts to a Washington Times article¹, which (par for the course) relies on "Reader's Digest Reasoning",

Although more formally known as the "Hasty Generalization", I think of that type of fallacious logic as "Readers Digest reasoning" because, with no offense intended to that publication, that is where I first encountered this particular rhetorical tool, and it is one that publication has historically used with significant frequency. The proponent of a position collects a set of sensational anecdotes, and strings them together to advance a political position. If you look past the surface such an argument usually falls apart pretty quickly - the "examples" are found to be completely unrelated and isolated, and the "trend" ostensibly shown by stringing them together simply doesn't exist.

Buchanan's parade of horrors seems pretty pedestrian - a couple of childish pranks, an ill-behaved protester, a couple of examples of people exercising their right to present their own religious views when the government chooses to allow private displays of religious belief in a public space. Buchanan quotes from the Times editorial, "In the Wisconsin statehouse, a sign informs visitors, 'Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.'" A bit of digging reveals that it's... pretty insignificant, as signs go.

Buchanan complains,

The First Amendment does protect what they are doing. But what they are doing is engaging in hate speech and anti-Christian bigotry. For what is the purpose of what they are about, if not to wound, offend, insult and mock fellow Americans celebrating the happiest day of their calendar year?

Buchanan's hyperbole having been duly noted, his conclusion is nonsense. The First Amendment does not create a freedom from being offended, nor would some form of blasphemy law be consistent with the First Amendment. Further, although presumably Buchanan would impose a blasphemy law exclusively to the benefit of Christianity, it is fair to observe that public expressions and affirmations of Christianity can potentially offend people of other faiths. Even if we pretend that it's impossible for the typical American to avoid encountering one of the four isolated, trivial examples Buchanan provides of the "War on Christmas", it would not be consistent with the Constitution to limit the First Amendment's protections only to Christian sensitivities.

Buchanan continues, "Even if a man disbelieves this, why would he interfere with or deny his fellow countrymen, three in four of whom still profess to be Christians, their right to celebrate in public this joyous occasion?" First, virtually nobody would be aware of the four, trivial incidents Buchanan cites if not for the effort that people like Buchanan make to magnify and publicize them. Second, sorry, if you allow your holiday to be ruined by learning that an atheist argues that the world needs kindness and not religion, the message of the Wisconsin sign, or that an insignificant number of people respond in an immature manner to the use of pubic spaces to advance a religion they don't share, you have bigger problems than a "War on Christmas".

Buchanan can't keep himself from attacking the President as part of this "war" on Christmas and Christianity.

Not long ago, the Supreme Court (1892) and three U.S. presidents — Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter — all declared America to be a "Christian nation."

They did not mean that any particular denomination had been declared America’s national religion — indeed, that was ruled out in the Constitution — but that we were predominantly a Christian people.

I'm left wondering, where are Buchanan's heroes - Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George Bush, on that list? Where's any Republican President? The issue, of course, is not that Republican Presidents have not made expressions of faith, but that they have not used Buchanan's preferred magic words. Reagan's statement that we're a nation "Under God" is inclusive - the sort of quote that undermines the very notion of (or makes Reagan a part of) the supposed war on Christianity and Christmas.

Having told us that a President should feel free to affirm our nation's Christianity, not through a literal expression that "" but through an acknowledgment that "", what does Buchanan do next? He lies.²

Was it a manifestation of tolerance and maturity, or pusillanimity, that Christians allowed themselves to be robbed of their inheritance to a point where Barack Obama could assert without contradiction that we Americans "do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation"?

If you're like me, your first reaction to that claim would be skepticism - Buchanan provides no source, no date, no context, and the meaning Buchanan attributes to the statement is inconsistent with the President's beliefs and philosophies. Fortunately the President's statements are all easily accessible through whitehouse.gov, and the comment is found within a statement made in April, 2009, during President Obama's trip to Turkey:

I think that where -- where there's the most promise of building stronger U.S.-Turkish relations is in the recognition that Turkey and the United States can build a model partnership in which a predominantly Christian nation and a predominantly Muslim nation, a Western nation and a nation that straddles two continents -- that we can create a modern international community that is respectful, that is secure, that is prosperous; that there are not tensions, inevitable tensions, between cultures, which I think is extraordinarily important.

That's something that's very important to me. And I've said before that one of the great strengths of the United States is -- although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.

Buchanan has told us that a President's statement that we're a "Christian nation" means "that we [a]re predominantly a Christian people" - you know, exactly what the President said. And when he acknowledges that the Presidents who have described the U.S. as a Christian nation "did not mean that any particular denomination had been declared America’s national religion", that's also exactly what the President said.

Buchanan's criticism thus becomes, "Rather than saying that we're a 'Christian nation', by which he would mean that we're predominantly a Christian people living in a land with no national religion, the President said that we're predominantly a Christian people living in a land with no national religion - and I'm horrified." That takes us back to the earlier issue - rather than imagining a war on Christmas or misrepresenting the President's statements to manufacture outrage, perhaps Buchanan should spend some of the Christmas season actually thinking about and reflecting upon the meaning of the religion and holiday he purports to be defending.
________________
1. The Washington Times, of course, has an overt political agenda. Buchanan may appreciate the Unification Church's defense of his old boss, Richard Nixon, "back in the day", but it's interesting to me that he will accept without question the religious proclamations of a paper that is controlled by a family that is decidedly non-Christian and would just as soon the nation converted to their own faith.

2. A defender of Buchanan might attempt to argue that we should infer that Buchanan was speaking in ignorance of the facts, and that his flagrant misrepresentation of the President's statement should thus not be viewed as a lie because lying is an intentional act. If Buchanan wants to admit to that level of sloppiness with his facts and reasoning, I'll retract "He lies" and substitute, "He reveals himself as an ignorant buffoon".

Less Junk, More Charity

George Will makes some good points on Christmas consumerism.

Have a Dowd Paul Krugman Christmas!

What are blog readers searching for this hour? According to Technorati:

1. Dowd - Apparently people are searching out her latest column, which (from the stuff that's not behind the firewall) is an update on last year when she "let her brother" (a Republican) write the bulk of the column for her.

2. "Paul Krugman" - The other Times columnists are "hit and miss", but you can always find Paul Krugman's latest column through technorati and Google's blog search.

3. Christmas - You would almost think it was Christmas Eve....

4. James Dungy - Which reminds me of my post of last evening. It's Christmas, it's tragic for his family, leave it alone... at least for a few days. Okay?

5. Wafa Dufour - Apparently the niece of Osama Bin Laden and an aspiring professional singer / Paris Hilton wannabee.

6. Intelligent Design - Give me a break.

7. Luciana Salazar - Apparently for some people it's not Christmas if you don't get some Argentinian cheesecake.

8. Apple - Apple what? Apple pie? Apple iPod?

9. Mu Zimei - Apparently China's equivalent of Paris Hilton. (Distiction: I had heard of Paris Hilton before today; Similarity: I wish I was still blissfully ignorant of both of them. Along with the Argentinian, um, model and that Bin Laden niece....)

10. Brokeback Mountain - Oops. Refreshing technorati shows that Brokeback Mountain was just replaced by "Sarcozy". Neither being what I would pick for Christmas entertainment.

Apparently, I don't have my finger on the pulse of American society.

"Reader's Digest Reasoning" Plus an Urban Myth?

In "Censorship across the divide: 'Epithet' that!", Diana West displays what I call "Reader's Digest reasoning" - the repeated use of the biased sample to try to convey a political message that has little to no basis in reality. Many people who are predisposed either to the politics behind such a writing, or who are inclined to believe anything they read, will accept such "arguments" without recognizing how little support is actually extended for the conclusions asserted by the author.

After whining about how one of her friends joked about the ACLU coercing him to say "Happy Holiday" (singluar) instead of "Merry Christmas", she complains,

Everyone has a war story from the Yuletide front, where Christmas comes under such heavy fire that Americans wave the pre-emptive white flag of "Happy Holidays" to avoid giving what is known as "offense" and receiving what feels like censure. Not that "Christmas" is the ultimate unmentionable. A story recently made the rounds about a Virginia teacher who spoke the utterly non-denominational (in fact, traditionally superstitious) injunction "God bless you" over a sneezy student. Said student, sniveling wretch, proceeded to inform on the teacher for this act of New Blasphemy, for which the teacher was, incredibly, reprimanded.

Somehow I managed to get through the entire season without taking or giving offense at the expression, "Merry Christmas" - and, for that matter, "Happy Christmas" with my British friends and family. How peculiar.

But that Virginia story really caught my eye - as a probable urban myth. It does not yet appear to be in Snopes, but I felt confident that such an incident would be covered by the Virginia press if it were real. So I checked a dozen Virginia newspapers, including the leading papers of all major cities, and scoured their archives - nothing. Searches of Yahoo! news and Google news turned up Diana's article, but otherwise no confirmation was found. (And, as with a typical urban myth, the proponent can't cite a reliable source and doesn't provide any details which would be helpful in tracking down the roots of the story.) Go figure.

The rest of Diana's article meanders from whinging that Lenny Bruce was given a posthumus pardon for an obscenity conviction that could not occur under modern First Amendment law to how unfair comedians are to Republicans. As a proponent of free speech, Diana has a real problem with... free speech? Okay - so I was wrong in assuming she supported free speech - I guess she opposes it. She then complains that the Supreme Court "effectively censored G-rated political speech by upholding the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act" - and as an opponent of free speech she has a real problem with this restriction on free speech? Um.... Perhaps the primary problem is that she's not big on internal consistency?

She next complains that the Democrats told mean jokes about George Bush, his policies and cabinet, at a comedy fund raiser, and how such insolence would result in harsh media reaction had "anything like this" occurred at a Republcan event. Mind you, as with her apparent urban myth, Diana offers nothing to support this bare claim, beyond attributing it to "the New York Post's Deborah Orin". Apparently when Diana and Deborah agree, no proof or evidence is necessary.

Her conclusion is that comics can swear and insult Republicans without social sanction, but "when it comes to holiday greetings, you're on your own. H---- N-- Y---.

Well, gosh - now I'm intimidated. I think I said "Merry Christmas" and "Happy New Year" several times in recent weeks - right here in this blog. (As Britney might say, "Oops, I did it again.") And I obviously haven't met my quota of "socially safe" blasphemy and obscenity. The PC police will no doubt be along for me any second now....

I think I'll link this to the discussion thread for idiotorials:

Comments

The Christmas Spirit

In a pre-Christmas conversation, a relative presented an observation about the United States: "We're a very generous nation. If anybody's going hungry, it's their own damn fault." I pointed out that there was something of a tension between those two assertions.

When I was practicing criminal defense law, I was exposed to a world of people I wouldn't otherwise know existed. People you probably will neither encounter nor notice if you live a standard U.S. middle class lifestyle. It is eye-opening to see the effects of multigenerational poverty, alcoholism, abuse, neglect, and drug addiction. It is rather appalling to see families who, like the proverbial crabs in a bucket, do their utmost to claw and pull any relative who attempts to escape the cycle back down into the bucket. It is sad to see people who are trying hard to improve their lot in life, but lack the requisite grounding in basic job skills to hold a decent job - what most of us consider to be "common sense" practices, such as getting to work on time, or the manner in which we address a supervisor or boss (even, or perhaps especially, when treated unfairly).

This is coupled with government policies which work to discourage marriage among the poor, by slashing benefits for many poor women who admit cohabitation or enter into marriage with the fathers of their children. If you want full benefits, you stay single - but, at least in part as a consequence, family units are far less stable, and many poor kids tend to grow up without a consistent father figure, or with siblings from several different fathers.

I do not mean to indict the entire social welfare system, as on the whole it works. The majority of welfare recipients use the aid to recover from a personal or financial crisis, and after about three years on average are back to self-sufficiency. The problem is that the system has both helped create a population which is completely dependent upon welfare, and despite the "reforms" of recent years continues to be structured in a manner which perpetuates dependency among that population.

When I read Jennifer Nicholson's "Christmas" column, Ebenezer Was Right, in the National Review Online, I was impressed with how a minor exposure to the world I saw on a daily basis as a criminal defense attorney had inspired an incredibly hostile reaction in Ms. Nicholson. While I was impressed with the need to find ways to break the cycle of poverty, Ms. Nicholson's reaction was of anger, spite, and on the whole a desire to ignore the problem - not because ignoring it will make it go away, but because she is at heart a selfish person.

Oh no, she would surely protest - she attended to the poor lady's kids, generously giving them food, support, and attention that they lacked at home. But what was her conclusion - that we need to find a way to help those kids escape the cycle despite poor parental role modeling? That we need to find a way to teach their mother greater job and parenting skills? No. It was to dismiss them all as human refuse - throw away the mother as a useless person, and let the kids go down with her - whether to jail or to the poor house. Merry Christmas.

Ms. Nicholson's column also reflects an inherent weakness of thinking - she (and the NRO editors who approved her column) are deeply in the grip of the "hasty generalization". It is easier for them to look at one individual, whether it be Ms. Nicholson's neighbor or the mythic "welfare queen in a Cadillac" who featured so prominently in Ronald Reagan's campaigning, than it is to look at the whole. And it is easier for them to argue that an entire population should be thrown away, than it is to suggest viable solutions.

Ms. Nicholson didn't focus on the efforts her neighbor was trying to make, but instead focused on her failings. The neighbor managed to obtain jobs, and was obviously trying to provide a better life for her family - but Ms. Nicholson focuses on the woman's difficulty holding a job, difficulty providing appropriate child care while working in menial jobs, and literally laments that she cannot give truth to Ebenezer Scrooge's desire for prisons and poorhouses for that type of person. Oh yes - and the neighbor she openly despised was not sufficiently grateful for the kindness Ms. Nicholson showed to her children. (Let's overlook the fact that she couldn't have avoided noticing the degree of antipathy held for her by Ms. Nicholson.)

The "hasty generalization" is used by people like Ms. Nicholson to justify no end of prejudice, anger, and even hatred. It becomes okay to hate poor people, because of the "ingratitude" of one poor neighbor. It becomes okay to hate black people "because my cousin was mugged by a black guy". It becomes okay to hate Arabs because there are a few Palestinian suicide bombers. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseum.

Ms. Nicholson's final sentiment,

Maybe, with the help of a jail and a poorhouse, the little family will get it together, discover the value of work. It's a long shot, but, as the magnet on my refrigerator says, "Dreams come true at Christmas."

is about as far from the Christmas spirit, and about as far from a Christian spirit, as one can get. It is no small wonder that she and her editors idolize Ebenezer Scrooge - who was similarly trapped in small-mindedness, greed, prejudice, and anger.

If you are a believer, your prayers this season no doubt include those less fortunate than you. You might want to add a word for those like Ms. Nicholson who have lost their way.

Comments