British Journalist Meets American Right-Wing Radio
via aldaily, Anatole Kaletsky hears a few choice words in return:
LAST WEEK I devoted this space to a diatribe against George W. Bush, conjoined with a paean of praise for the American system and Alan Greenspan, the retiring Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. The purpose of the article was to discuss the genius of a nation whose economy, culture and spirit of public service could operate so successfully, despite — or perhaps because of — such doltishly incompetent leadership from its top politicians. To my astonishment, this article generated a huge response, largely because it was read out on the radio by Rush Limbaugh, the country’s most famous right-wing talk show host. Within hours of publication I received nearly 500 e-mails from American readers. About a quarter of these emails were split between praise and rational disagreement. However, the vast majority — some 300 — were abusive to the point of obscenity (homo Arab ass-f*****, Commie Jew-boy, Nigger-lover and so on). What opened the sluices on this flood of electronic sewerage was neither the offensiveness nor the originality of my article. As several of my correspondents disparagingly noted, President Bush has lived quite comfortably with this kind of ridicule in the US media every day. And as for originality, most of my favourable observations about the American system were expressed much more eloquently 200 years ago by Alexis de Tocqueville. It seems, however, that an article in a foreign newspaper full of condescending derision for the US President touched a raw nerve in America’s conservative heartland — and that is why, with the Muslim world apparently in turmoil over some mediocre cartoons in a little-known Danish paper, I return to this subject.My reaction to the outpouring of abuse was to reaffirm a longstanding prejudice: that “white trash” American ultra-conservatives were the only people on earth who could possibly rival Islamic fundamentalists in their paranoia, touchiness and lack of humour. I planned to respond to my detractors by writing a tongue-in-cheek apology for the offence I had caused by insulting the head of their state religion and underestimating His great distinctions and achievements. This would be styled on the formulaic, hypocritical apologies offered by European politicians to the Muslim community.
But as the cartoon saga has turned to tragedy, with people dying and embassies burning, satire and irony would now be out of place. What is more appropriate is a serious comparison between the Muslim and American fundamentalists’ intolerance of other people’s ideas. This comparison may seem far-fetched but it brings out three distinctions that are critical in managing relations between Islamic fundamentalism and the modern world.
The first, very obvious, distinction is between civility and legality, between comment or behaviour that is discourteous, inconsiderate or unpleasant and behaviour which is, or should be, unlawful. Despite the hypersensitivity of the Americans who showered me with linguistic ordure, nobody would dream of suggesting that insulting America and its President should be banned. These 300 right-wing nuts wanted me sacked for my ignorance; they wanted The Times used as toilet paper, but none of them would suggest that I should be legally prevented from saying that President Bush was a fool.
How different from the paranoid religiosity of the Muslim fundamentalists who insist that “insulting religion” should not be a question of taste or of judgment, but a subject for criminal law. Yet this obvious distinction between what is offensive and what should be illegal is deliberately ignored by the Blair Government, which wants to make insulting religion a criminal offence.
Freedom of motherfucking speech. I'm all for it. Although it helps to know when one is being persuasive versus when one is merely being a rude, obscenity-hurling assclown.
I've tried to say something new, but it all comes down to Anatole Kaletsky's last two paragraphs. I agree.
As to the Moslems: it's necessary to treat them as people, not as monsters. Their religion has been hijacked and used as a weapon. Religion lends itself to hijacking! You can rail against religions - I'll join in the railing - but the fact is they are going to be around for some time to come. We'd all better pull together, on both sides of the religious divide, or we're sunk. The Moslems may need help to reclaim their religion. That's going to need a delicate touch.
Norman at February 14, 2006 9:15 AM
"It seems, however, that an article in a foreign newspaper full of condescending derision for the US President touched a raw nerve in America’s conservative heartland..."
That wasn't a raw nerve--that's what right wing, propaganda victims use for brains. ...and they weren't reacting to anything you wrote--they were reacting to the existence of anything counter-Bush.
I've provoked such reactions online--I used to save my hate mail. I was once called a racist for questioning the logic of NeoCon Reverse Domino Theory and a terrorist sympathizer for comin' out big against torture. I mention both with a sense of pride. I hope my comments and the comments of those that responded so will live on in cyberspace forever. I look forward to showing them to my grandchildren (if I ever have any). "See?", I'll say, "Grandpa used to drive the wing nuts crazy!"
Hate mail from idiots may not be the sincerest form of flattery, but, surely, it's the highest form of all.
Ken Shultz at February 14, 2006 7:16 PM
I'm very, very flattered then! I get piles of it, especially when I question the feminist status quo. Doing that is why I'm banned from the LA Times.
Readers who read me in the OC Register constantly write to say they'd buy the LA Times if I were in it. One of them wrote to the features editor, John Montorio, recently, and he said they think Amy Dickinson (Ask Amy) serves their readership. Well, apparently not, but they don't really give a crap! I write one column a week, one that's fair to men and puts out science data in a way others don't, and they refuse to run it -- despite the fact that I beat Michael Kinsley, their then editorial page head, in the LA Press Club awards for "signed commentary" -- and for an ADVICE column.
What's the problem with running me over there? Well, when the one article I ever wrote for them ran, about my stolen pink Rambler, it contained this line: "When you're a girl, it pays to go to the police station in person, as in 'Hi, I have big breasts, will you help me find my car?'" The ladies at the paper told my editor: "It'll be a long time before we see her breasts in the paper again." Or my writing, apparently, either. At least, not in the features section. The editorial page editors apparently aren't in on the seventh grade grudge thing. I'm hoping to write something for that section. But, my column? No dice.
Amy Alkon at February 14, 2006 11:10 PM
Leave a comment