This was my comment to your Bush Church article:
I read this again at my leisure. I don't think it worth my time to dissect your article....however,as we are want to do I started to do just that ....
My inner dialogue lead me to reflect again on the word "bigotry." Growing up in Texas I had heard the word since childhood and had always assumed it meant racist. When I looked it up I was surprised to find this:
bigotry
\Big"ot*ry\, n. [Cf. F. bigoterie.] 1. The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.
It struck me then (I looked it up years ago) that one did not have to be a racist or stupid to be a bigot ... in fact the more educated I became the more I realized that the educated among us were the more bigoted.
Why do I reflect on this in regard to your article? Because clearly you went into it with your permis firmly in place and emerged with that same permis completely unscathed...and you discovered nothing in your journey ....So the next time you get with your friends and colleagues and chuckle snidely with your superior airs about "Bush" look around and ask yourself "Is anyone here a bigot ?"
Why do I reflect on this in regard to your article? Because clearly you went into it with your permis firmly in place and emerged with that same permis completely unscathed...and you discovered nothing in your journey ....So the next time you get with your friends and colleagues and chuckle snidely with your superior airs about "Bush" look around and ask yourself "Is anyone here a bigot ?"
----
Woofie, I'm often accused on FR of going into my reporting with my premises already firmly in place, then just "cherry-picking" quotes that confirm it. All I can do is tell you in good faith I don't. I developed the HYPOTHESIS that some conservatives were beginning to use their judgement that Bush was an inherently good person, deep within his soul, as an excuse not to think straight about what George Bush is doing, in an email dialogue with a FR member.
The hypothesis also came from reporting I did on conservatives who believe Bush was an instrument of God's will, and even literally prophesied in the Bible.
It also came from reading every single post on the live thread on FR about Bush's April press conference.
I was surprised to notice the depths of the hero worship, and how it cut directly against conservative wisdom about human nature, and went to Portland to see how common it was. It wasn't universal--that's why I reported on the guy who kept on criticizing Bush, but said that the liberal alternative was only building "bike paths"--but it certainly was there.
I'm sorry you think I'm bigoted towards conservatives. Talking with conservatives is one of the things I most enjoy in the world.
OK, I definitely don't know what to make of this!
An editorial this week in the Richmond Times Dispatch cites me as one of two political commentators that actually seeks insight instead of just trying to repeat my premises.
Make of it what you will. I have no idea how credible this source is!
RP
Copyright 2004 Richmond Newspapers, Inc.
Richmond Times Dispatch (Virginia)
July 30, 2004 Friday City Edition
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A-10
LENGTH: 312 words
HEADLINE: MORE OF THE SAME
BYLINE: Todd Culbertson/ Mr. Culbertson, Deputy Editor of the Times-Dispatch Editorial Page, is covering his 10th national political convention.,
DATELINE: BOSTON
BODY:
The national conventions give ample opportunity for humor - intentional or un-. By the thousands scriveners and screaming heads invade the host cities. Everyone has an opinion on everything, and in most cases the opinions could have been written years before. Observers see what they want to see, which means they often miss the picture.
Although the occasional commentator seeks insight - David Brooks comes to mind on the right, The Nation's Rick Perlstein on the left - most revel in scoring points. The right's performance during this year's Democratic primaries is tell-tale. When Howard Dean soared (or at least when the press corps thought he was soaring) partisan kibitzers described him as the most radical and dangerous rabble-rouser since Emiliano Zapata. As soon as John Kerry took the lead, he became the most extreme candidate in human history. The left's similarly sullen gambit is to denounce George Bush as an ideological extremist when Bush is as ideological, and as extreme, as scrod. If the No Child Left Behind Act and the Medicare prescription-drug plan represent hard-edged conservative ideology, then "conservative" and "ideology" can mean just about anything.
The question before the house asks whether it is more profitable or entertaining (or both) to read a pundit on convivial turf or hostile. Ellen Goodman perches in Boston and writes with discernment when among Democrats, but when writing about Republicans her eloquence reduces to a whine. Peggy Noonan hits the high notes when discussing Reagan and George Bush but sometimes displays a tin ear when reporting on the Clintons and other Democrats. Ms. Goodman and Ms. Noonan are not unique. They are cited because they stand at the top of the trade. The lessers are something else.
Empathy is a priceless gift. Knee-capping the opposition is so much more fun. Ready, aim, fire!/