|
Manufacturing opponents of "civil rights" (1/16)
By Brendan Nyhan
In an echo of tactics used in the fight against Judge Charles Pickering's re-nomination to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, leading Democrats are again unfairly suggesting that President Bush opposes "civil rights," this time as a result of his decision to file a brief with the Supreme Court calling the University of Michigan's use of race in admissions unconstitutional.
Last week, Democrats went on the attack, implying President Bush and Republican supporters of Pickering's nomination oppose "civil rights," a broad and contested term encompassing a range of laws and policies. For example, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said, "You're going to have those who favor civil rights on one side, and those who have a lot of explaining to do on the other side." In this way, Pickering opponents such as Daschle drew vague analogies to comments by Senator Trent Lott, R-Miss., that expressed support for Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist campaign for the presidency, suggesting that Bush and others might share such views. At the same time, they attempted to blur the lines between the civil rights of non-discrimination enacted into law in the 1950s and 1960s that are supported by nearly every national politician -- measures ensuring equal access to public facilities, ending unfair restrictions at the polls, etc. -- and the affirmative remedies that generally came later, which include affirmative action, majority-minority Congressional districts and so forth. To some, these measures are all part of the same agenda, but opposition to affirmative action does not necessarily imply any opposition to "civil rights" -- a distinction that some Democrats are eager to obscure for political purposes.
Yesterday, Daschle and another prominent Democrat again utilized this strategy, implying that Bush opposes "civil rights" as a result of his decision in the Michigan case. Before the President announced his decision, Daschle tried to define the issue: "They [the Bush administration] have to decide whether they're for civil rights and diversity or not." Afterward, on the Senate floor, he attacked Bush by associating him with opponents of "civil rights," which implicitly includes Lott. "Once again today the administration has said as clearly by their actions as anyone can," Daschle said, "that they will continue to side with those opposed to civil rights." Senator John Edwards, D-N.C., added, "President Bush had a chance to show he supported diversity and civil rights. But he failed."
Again, Bush's decision does not automatically make him an opponent of "civil rights." He actually supports a wide range of policies that are implicit in this term under almost every definition, while opposing others - such as affirmative action - that some also include. In the end, the question is what the term means today. Loaded suggestions that people oppose "civil rights" are simply a demagogic attempt to avoid the question entirely.
[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]
Related links:
-Demagoguing Pickering (Brendan Nyhan, 1/10/03)
1/16/2003 08:02:55 PM EST |
How one phrase has become a key battleground in economic policy debates
By Ben Fritz
As tax cuts have taken center stage recently, so has a term that has become inextricable from any argument over economic policy in the past few years: "class warfare." Republican politicians and their supporters in the media have used "class warfare" to frame Democrats as divisive opponents of the wealthy who want to turn one class against another, while Democrats use it to frame Republicans as friends of the rich and powerful whose economic policies offer little help to the middle class and working families. Winning the war over this term has become a key component of the struggle to secure public support in the new budget battle. Indeed, the phrase is a perfect example of how Washington political battles can focus on defining the terms of debate rather than the policy itself. (Read the whole column)
[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]
1/14/2003 09:14:16 PM EST |
Filmmaker-provocateur Michael Moore wanted to expose America's gun culture with his documentary, "Bowling for Columbine." Instead, he again exposed his basic dishonesty. [Published in the Orange County Register]
By Ben Fritz
It's no exaggeration to say Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" has had the greatest impact of any documentary in this country since his own "Roger and Me" 14 years ago. After winning a special prize last spring at the Cannes Film Festival, Moore's exploration of the reasons behind America's high rate of gun violence went on to break "Roger and Me's" record for the highest box office gross of any nonmusical documentary. Now it's won the prestigious National Board of Review's "Best Documentary" prize, made over 100 critics' Top 10 lists, and been voted by members of the International Documentary Association as the best documentary of all time. But in their praise of Moore's provocative and often hilarious filmmaking style, critics have neglected the fact that "Bowling for Columbine" fails at the most basic task of a documentary: telling the truth. (Read the whole column.)
[Portions of this article were previously published on the Spinsanity website.]
[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]
Related links:
-Spinsanity's coverage of Michael Moore
1/12/2003 11:34:43 AM EST |
Home | Columns | Posts | Topics | Email list | About | Search
This website is copyright (c) 2001-2005 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan. Please send letters to the editor for publication to letters@spinsanity.org and private questions or comments to feedback@spinsanity.org.
Comments by YACCS
| |
The nation's leading watchdog of manipulative political rhetoric.
News
-We have decided to stop updating the website. See our farewell post for more.
The Spinsanity store at CafePress.com
|
|