Re: theater

["George K Cunningham" <gkc@louisville.edu>]

Here is a better take from Opinion Journal

The Stephen Colbert kerfuffle, intrinsically uninteresting though it
is, leads Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen to an excellent
insight:

Why are you wasting my time with Colbert, I hear you ask. Because he is
representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to
mention wit, in this country. His defenders--and they are all over the
blogosphere--will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired
phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it
suggested repercussions, consequences--maybe even death in some
countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance
that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or--if you're at
work--take away your office. 

But in this country, anyone can insult the president of the United
States. Colbert just did it, and he will not suffer any consequence at
all. He knew that going in.

This, it seems to us, explains several conceits of the Angry Left:

The notion that criticism--whether of the Dixie Chicks or of Stephen
Walt and John Mearsheimer--amounts to censorship.


Claims by Democratic politicians that Republicans are "questioning"
their "patriotism."


Fears of incipient fascism. 
What these have in common, aside from being totally fantastical, is
that they all reinforce the image of the Angry Leftist as courageous
dissenter. In truth, this country is so tolerant, indeed downright
indulgent, of this sort of "dissent" that it affords no opportunity to
be courageous.

Speak "truth to power" in America, and power will pat you on the head
and say, "What an adorable little girl." Some on the Angry Left could
actually have the courage to stand up if they were faced with real
consequences--but they are unlikely ever to get that chance. America's
almost boundless tolerance thus reduces them to the level of petulant
children. No wonder they're so angry.




George K. Cunningham
Professor, Ret.

>>> campbellp@mail.montclair.edu 05/04/06 6:35 PM >>>
For those of you who did not get to experience Steven Colbert rip  
Bush a new one at the White House Correspondents' dinner, here it is:

(put this into RealPlayer):

rtsp://video.c-span.org/60days/wh042906_dinner.rm?mode=compact

It starts at 1:06:25

It was the most satisfying 15 minutes I've had in a long time.


On May 4, 2006, at 11:41 AM, GERALD BRACEY wrote:

> Stephen Colbert has been getting all the attention--including  
> attention about the media's inattention--for his savaging of Bush  
> and the media at the White House Press Corps dinner (a pack of  
> stenographers, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., once called them), but there 

> was some decent street theater at the National Press Club last week 

> when Larry Mishel took on Jay Greene over dropout rates.  Jack  
> Jennings put the event together.
>
> You can hear the debate, lasts a little over an hour, at  
> www.epinet.org.  Good comments from the floor, too.  Some parts of  
> Larry's initial presentation might be a little hard to follow  
> because he's using graphs and doesn't always describe them  
> completely, but the ideas are clear.  Larry opens his response to  
> Jay by calling him a flag waver, a term he says he learned in  
> graduate school about people who makes claims with no data to back  
> them up.  Sets the tone.
>
> Jerry
>
>