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:
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Kenneth: How great is Ricochet?
Mark Wilson, Michael Labeit and I haven't even had the stitches removed from our recent knife fights with each other and now we're standing together.
Guys, your stuff on this thread has been stellar. · Jul 9 at 7:27pm
And I've been looking on, slack-jawed with astonishment and wonder. This is great.
Aug '10
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Squishy Blue RINO
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
MFR- Have you been reading Eugene H. Peterson?
No, but the book sounds interesting. Thanks!
Ever since my Early Christian History class senior year of college, I've often pondered why Jesus spoke in parables rather than directly. I'm convinced He knew what He was doing! · Jul 9 at 7:52pm
Yes, I have always had trouble making heads or tails of some of His parables.
He is a bit of a monarchist as well.
Apr '11
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Mark Wilson
Michael Patrick Tracy
Mark Wilson
Michael Patrick Tracy: At what point did truth become a public relations issue?
<cue obligatory lecture about my naivete> · Jul 9 at 7:21pm
Truth isn't. Winning elections is. · Jul 9 at 7:27pm
But the implicit 800 lb gorilla in this thread is whether or not truth and winning are mutually exclusive. I would assert that they are necessarily conjoined. · Jul 9 at 7:35pm
I agree they are. But that doesn't mean you should blurt out any and every unpleasant truth whenever you want, in a manner that could be easily misinterpreted. · Jul 9 at 7:44pm
Hard to argue against that. Grrr. :)
May '10
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Mark Wilson
When you run for President, don't distract from your message with language that might be misconstrued. If you can't avoid doing it, you don't deserve to represent us as the Republican candidate. · Jul 9 at 7:22pm
If this is true, no conservative woman "deserves" to run for President. The media, left, and even some on the right, are eager to pounce on, twist and contort any range of statements Bachmann makes. They willfully misunderstand or take phony offense in order to make her a nutter or a nicompoop.
Mar '11
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Mark Wilson
Michael Patrick Tracy
Mark Wilson
Michael Patrick Tracy: At what point did truth become a public relations issue?
<cue obligatory lecture about my naivete> · Jul 9 at 7:21pm
Truth isn't. Winning elections is. · Jul 9 at 7:27pm
But the implicit 800 lb gorilla in this thread is whether or not truth and winning are mutually exclusive. I would assert that they are necessarily conjoined. · Jul 9 at 7:35pm
I agree they are. But that doesn't mean you should blurt out any and every unpleasant truth whenever you want, in a manner that could be easily misinterpreted. · Jul 9 at 7:44pm
The misinterpreters work very hard at misinterpreting. And again, we'll end up lining up behind an innocuous schlemiel. To rephrase Wellington: we'll come on in the same old way and they'll see us off in the same old way.
(Note: just because I referenced Wellington does not mean that I'm proposing open warfare, the use of Napoleonic tactics, or a Grand Coalition against the French. Well, not the first two, anyway.)
Apr '11
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
As Ann Coulter says in her current column, "A 1990 study by the (liberal) Progressive Policy Institute showed that, after controlling for single motherhood, the difference in black and white crime rates disappeared.".
Apr '11
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Percival
(snip) The misinterpreters work very hard at misinterpreting. And again, we'll end up lining up behind an innocuous schlemiel. To rephrase Wellington: we'll come on in the same old way and they'll see us off in the same old way. (snip) · Jul 9 at 8:47pm
Meet the new schmuck, same as the old schmuck.
Apr '11
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
grendel
(snip)
As Ann Coulter says in her current column, "A 1990 study by the (liberal) Progressive Policy Institute showed that, after controlling for single motherhood, the difference in black and white crime rates disappeared.". · Jul 9 at 8:49pm
So has Ricochet been classified as a hate speech site yet? Way too much common sense going on here. No no no, that will not do.
Apr '11
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Fathers are not incidental, notwithstanding fish/bicycle bumperstickers of yore.
Jul '10
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Kenneth
Well, there ya go. We've wasted thousands of words supporting her stupid mistake and now she says it was, um, a stupid mistake. · Jul 9 at 7:11pm
She didn't withdraw it, the sponsors did. This in no way changes that she endorsed the position with the original language.
Except that she didn't. She signed the Candidate's Vow, which contained no slavery discussion at all. At least according to Maggie Haberman in the Politico article cited by Mr. Labeit, above.
To sum up, we of Ricochet have (reportedly) bit hard on a provocative bit of misinformation, the line is played out, and we have (I hope) snapped the line after tangling ourselves hopelessly in fictional fishing gear.
Oy vey!
Edited on July 10, 2011 at 8:12amDec '10
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Tropes. Politics is contested with tropes, not merely with literal "true" statements. Ever since Everett Dirksen (R. Illinois) helped LBJ pass civil rights in 1964 and 1965 Republicans have been running away from equality for African Americans. George Wallace (D. Alabama) was the first master of this act in 1968. Nixon co-opted the Wallace strategy and the "Lost Cause" has been a staple of Republican campaign rhetoric since then. Bachman was not speaking a "truth" about African Americans so much as she was using a trope to let the racist wing of the Republican party know that she is "safe." She was signaling that she hopes the Wallacites remain part of her Republican coalition.
Edited on July 10, 2011 at 8:27amJul '10
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Sisyphus
Kenneth
Well, there ya go. We've wasted thousands of words supporting her stupid mistake and now she says it was, um, a stupid mistake. · Jul 9 at 7:11pm
She didn't withdraw it, the sponsors did. This in no way changes that she endorsed the position with the original language.
Except that she didn't. She signed the Candidate's Vow, which contained no slavery discussion at all. At least according to Maggie Haberman in the Politico article cited by Mr. Labeit, above.
To sum up, we of Ricochet have (reportedly) bit hard on a provocative bit of misinformation, the line is played out, and we have (I hope) snapped the line after tangling ourselves hopelessly in fictional fishing gear.
Oy vey! · Jul 9 at 10:18pm
Nice spin, but all you have to do is look at the original document to know it's not true. The "preamble" and the vow are inseparable.
Mar '11
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Paul,
The point in your post about White Americans is dead on. Which is why if the pledge had simply said
"In an America where out of wedlock births reach nearly 40% of babies born, the state of marriage is in crisis. Among some socio-economic groups, this crisis is being perpetuated by failed welfare state policies which have created intergenerational dependence. We vow to break this cycle."
it would be easy to defend, no less provocative, and would have avoided the notion that slavery has anything to do with the family breakdown in 21st century America.
As you pointed out, and as Charles Murray pointed out so thoroughly in his new book and AEI lecture, the problem of marriage is a class problem in America--while the upper/middle class has ideas about marriage that are derived from the legacy of the 1960s, they live in families like its the 1950s. It's the lower class, and the lower-middle class that are suffering from open family ideas and dependency programs.
That suffering is independent of race. That's why Murray makes the case using white families.
The vow should have made a statement similarly independent of race.
Aug '10
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Harry Huntington
Republicans have been running away from equality for African Americans.
Oh, really? Prove it to us. Because I consider the Republicans I know to be better champions of equality and opportunity than the Democrats, and I bet most of the folks here on Ricochet would agree with me.
Harry Huntington
Bachman was not speaking a "truth" about African Americans so much as she was using a trope to let the racist wing of the Republican party know that she is "safe."
What "racist wing"? Demonstrate to us that such a racist wing actually exists. (I mean an actual substantive wing, not the occasional nut jobs you find in any large-enough population.)
Many of us here have been active in Republican politics a long time without meeting this wing. Does the Republican party also have a purple talking duck wing, made up of purple talking ducks that it just so happens that none of us but you know about?
Harry Huntington
She was signaling that she hopes the Wallacites remain part of her Republican coalition.
Wallacites appears to be a term associated with Henry A Wallace and the Left, not George Wallace. I am confused.
Aug '10
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Harry Huntington
Bachman was not speaking a "truth" about African Americans so much as she was using a trope to let the racist wing of the Republican party know that she is "safe." She was signaling that she hopes the Wallacites remain part of her Republican coalition.
Hmm... let's see... A pro-family politician signs a poorly-worded statement that tells (albeit awkwardly) an uncomfortable truth about the breakdown of African-American families under entitlements.
Could it be that she really believes this truth, and was simply naive or reckless in endorsing a such poorly-framed way of expressing this truth?
Nah. A much simpler explanation is that it's a coded conspiratorial message to an invisible but apparently still powerful wing of the Republican party.
Nice use of Occam's razor. Makes Glenn Beck's old conspiracy ramblings seem a lot saner by comparison.
Edited on July 10, 2011 at 4:38pmMar '11
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Midge,
Absolutely correct. The problem isn't that any serious person thinks Bachmann is a racist (making that charge is unfounded).
The problem is we think she was careless, inexperienced, and has now distracted from the wider economic problems Americans face. We fear that this carelessness and inexperience portends multiple ways she will be stumble, misrepresent what she believes, and distract from core issues in ways that will be easy to caricature and ensure Obama's re-election.
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
It is an absurd interpretation. The very first sentence damns slavery. The point is that, bad as slavery was, it did not do as much damage to African-American families as the entitlements state. What is accomplished? The shocking comparison brings home how bad things are now. There is not the slightest hint in the pledge suggesting that slavery was good.
As for academic as opposed to political debate, it is the latter that should be blunt and straightfoward.
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Kenneth: Well, this incident helps to answer the question I asked here.
I understand the distaste of many on this thread for what they see as a propensity to pander to racial pieties as well as their dismay to see fellow conservatives give credence to the Left's memes,
But politics ain't beanball and if Bachmann becomes the eventual nominee, such rookie mistakes do not bode well. · Jul 9 at 6:49pm
Reagan consistently made such "mistakes." The liberals howled; the RINOs quailed. And Reagan, both as a candidate and as a President, turned these "mistakes" to good account.
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
That is a shame if it is true. It concedes a point that should not be conceded. Running away from the truth is the worst option anyone in public life can choose.
Re: Why Not Tell the Truth?
Kenneth
Samwise Gamgee
If she makes you nervous... doesn't everyone? Except for Romney, maybe? · Jul 9 at 6:53pm
Anyone here who pays the slightest bit of attention to my humble opinions knows I'm no Romney fan.
And, yes, all politicians make me nervous. The singular exception in my lifetime being Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan wanted to be President because he loved America and wanted to serve his nation.
I've seen that same spirit in Michele Bachmann, but she hasn't prepared herself through decades of study and hard work - and it shows. · Jul 9 at 7:00pm
I suspect you are right on this last point. I would add that she has no friends among her fellow Republicans in the House. She is a loner (and an attention-hogger). The contrast with Paul Ryan in this regard is striking.
She is, I think, thoughtful, and she is absolutely fearless -- a quality rare in politicians that I greatly admire.