Why Not Tell the Truth?
I gather from reading Ricochet and from exploring the blogosphere that Michele Bachmann is supposed to have blotted her copybook by signing a document that includes in its preamble the following:
Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.
This has given rise to outrage among liberals. Here it has given rise to a wringing of hands. I cannot for the life of me imagine why. Are we afraid of our own shadows? Mention the word race and tell anything resembling the truth, and we run for the exits. Take a look at the offending words. Where is there one thing said that is not true? It is, indeed, shocking. But that is the point. In one very important particular, African-Americans are worse off under the administrative entitlements state than they were in the last years of slavery. It could even be put in more shocking terms. The overall bastardy rate is 40%. White Americans are worse off in this particular than black Americans were under slavery in 1860.
Instead of piling on, we should be praising Michele Bachmann for stating a truth that we need to face up to. If conservatives cannot come to the defense of those who state the unvarnished truth, they are no more worthy of governing than are the liberal fantasists now in control.
Friends, get a grip.
- Comment (158)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
An entirely secular Amen to that!
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
From the most recent edition of Thomas Sowell's Economic Facts and Fallacies:
Jun '10
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
"Instead of piling on, we should be praising Michele Bachmann for stating a truth that we need to face up to. If conservatives cannot come to the defense of those who state the unvarnished truth, they are no more worthy of governing than are the liberal fantasists now in control."
Exactly.
Apr '11
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Thank for the calming words Paul. When I saw the earlier responses on Ricochet I thought, here we go!
Is it because we are so afraid to speak the truth anymore? My opinion is that we are afraid of being labeled. The left is so good at making labels stick because the don't care about anyone's reputation but there agenda trumps all civility, honesty or actual thought.
May '10
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Cue the Jack Nicholson clip...
Jun '10
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Indeed, sir. I have never seen as much parsing of words and phrases as is suffered by our female conservative leaders by those who should have their backs. But beyond taking sides on a political level, aren't we all searching for the larger truth? In this case isn't it time to stop worrying about offending the perpetually offended? How do we ever solve a problem if we are afraid of identifying the problem?
Mar '11
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Good for Mrs Bachmann - I am liking her more and more, notwithstanding Mr Murphy.
Edited on July 10, 2011 at 12:50amApr '11
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
And for heaven's sake don't bring up crime statistics. Everybody knows that statistics are racist.
May '10
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Paul A. Rahe:
Instead of piling on, we should be praising Michele Bachmann for stating a truth that we need to face up to. If conservatives cannot come to the defense of those who state the unvarnished truth, they are no more worthy of governing than are the liberal fantasists now in control.
Friends, get a grip. ·
It's one thing to say we should rise to the defense of truth and vigorously agree with her in debates with our liberal friends. But it's quite another to say we should put her forward as our candidate for President of the United States.
Sep '10
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Exactly so.
Aug '10
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
The question for me on this issue isn't, "Why not tell the truth?" but, "How should we tell the truth?" As the Belle of Amherst put it:
Tell all the Truth but tell it slant---
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise
As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind---
It's not only necessary to tell the truth, but to tell it in a form that people are prepared to understand. The unvarnished truth is often too much for frail humanity to grasp.
Mar '11
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Mark Wilson
Paul A. Rahe:
Instead of piling on, we should be praising Michele Bachmann for stating a truth that we need to face up to. If conservatives cannot come to the defense of those who state the unvarnished truth, they are no more worthy of governing than are the liberal fantasists now in control.
Friends, get a grip. ·
It's one thing to say we should rise to the defense of truth and vigorously agree with her in debates with our liberal friends. But it's quite another to say we should put her forward as our candidate for President of the United States. · Jul 9 at 3:52pm
The horror! A defender of truth as a Presidential candidate! As Claire would put it, heaven forfend!
Mar '11
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Anything that any of our candidates say will be curry-combed for phrases that can be characterized as racism or any other MSM-approved thought crime.
Meanwhile, Our Feckless Leader can babble on about the impact of ATMs on the jobless rate without raising an eyebrow.
This is nothing new, and I don't see any prospect of it changing any time soon.
Aug '10
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
My concern is with what was left out of the statement.
Why not tell the whole truth, why not include language in the statement that clearly and irrefutably states how evil and indefensible the institution of American slavery was?
Let's see if she is gutsy enough to include statements to that effect in her truth telling. Perhaps while campaigning in South Carolina prior to its primary? I would defend her doing that.
Should not an intelligent discussion contrasting the condition of families under slavery to those under the administrative state require a distinction between the nature of families composed of enslaved people as opposed those free people?
Failure to do so invites criticism from within and derision from without.
We as a nation are not yet at the point where omitting this language is wise and including it is no longer called for. This is even more the case given our party's racial and religious demography.
Edited on July 10, 2011 at 2:46amMay '10
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Basil Fawlty
Mark Wilson
Paul A. Rahe:
Instead of piling on, we should be praising Michele Bachmann for stating a truth that we need to face up to. If conservatives cannot come to the defense of those who state the unvarnished truth, they are no more worthy of governing than are the liberal fantasists now in control.
Friends, get a grip. ·
It's one thing to say we should rise to the defense of truth and vigorously agree with her in debates with our liberal friends. But it's quite another to say we should put her forward as our candidate for President of the United States. · Jul 9 at 3:52pm
The horror! A defender of truth as a Presidential candidate! As Claire would put it, heaven forfend! · Jul 9 at 4:01pm
To borrow from Donald Rumsfeld, you campaign with the electorate you have---not the electorate you might want or wish to have.
Simply defending truth is a necessary trait in a candidate but not a sufficient one. Knowing where and when to pick fights is very important. Not being able to discern when your actions will lead to fights is a big negative for a President.
Mar '11
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake: The question for me on this issue isn't, "Why not tell the truth?" but, "How should we tell the truth?" As the Belle of Amherst put it:
Tell all the Truth but tell it slant---
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise
As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind---
It's not only necessary to tell the truth, but to tell it in a form that people are prepared to understand. The unvarnished truth is often too much for frail humanity to grasp. · Jul 9 at 3:57pm
But, to the anti-Bachmann crowd, it's the very mention of race that's the problem. It's hard to tell unfortunate truths about race when the subject can't even be raised for fear of demagoguery.
Feb '11
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
I suppose that Dr. Rahe and Mr. Robinson are perfectly honest with Mrs. Rahe and Mrs. Robinson regarding questions like "does this dress make me look fat?"
Mar '11
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Mark Wilson
Basil Fawlty
Mark Wilson
It's one thing to say we should rise to the defense of truth and vigorously agree with her in debates with our liberal friends. But it's quite another to say we should put her forward as our candidate for President of the United States. · Jul 9 at 3:52pm
The horror! A defender of truth as a Presidential candidate! As Claire would put it, heaven forfend! · Jul 9 at 4:01pm
Simply defending truth is a necessary trait in a candidate but not a sufficient one. Knowing where and when to pick fights is very important. Not being able to discern when your actions will lead to fights is a big negative for a President. · Jul 9 at 4:20p
Then does one who fails to defend the truth about race lack a trait necessary to be a candidate for President?
Jul '10
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Mark Wilson
Basil Fawlty
Mark Wilson
Paul A. Rahe:
To borrow from Donald Rumsfeld, you campaign with the electorate you have---not the electorate you might want or wish to have.
Simply defending truth is a necessary trait in a candidate but not a sufficient one. Knowing where and when to pick fights is very important. Not being able to discern when your actions will lead to fights is a big negative for a President. · Jul 9 at 4:20pm
Well said.
A wise and temperate individual might have said to whoever drafted that sloppy screed, "Look, I'm in agreement with your values, but I just can't sign something that includes this egregious paragraph that some people are inevitably going to read as an observation that blacks were better off under slavery. Can you please clean this up and get it back to me?"
The fact that she failed to do so is disturbing - and this comes from someone who has twice contributed to her campaigns.
Mar '11
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
She also failed to include a statement that she had stopped beating her husband!
Squishy Blue RINO: My concern is with what was left out of the statement.
Why not tell the whole truth, why not include language in the statement that clearly and irrefutably states how evil and indefensible the institution of American slavery was.
Let's see if she is gutsy enough to includes statements to that effect in her truth telling while in South Carolina prior to that state's primary. I would defend her doing that.
Should not an intelligent discussion contrasting condition of families under slavery vs those under the administrative state require a distinction between the nature of families composed of enslaved people as opposed those free people?
Failure to do so invites criticism from within and derision from without.
I promise you all that we as a nation are not at the point in where omitting this language is wise and including it is uncalled for. This is even more the case given our party's racial and religous demography. · Jul 9 at 4:17pm