Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed


  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    NEWS TIPS!

    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!


    RightMichigan.com

    Buzz

    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Display: Sort:
    Dignity and respect - not false unity (none / 0) (#5)
    by chetly on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 04:39:38 PM EST
    There's a lot in here, but I think I disagree in general tone with the thrust of the piece. You're obviously right to defend disunity and dissent, but I think that's the wrong focus, at best.

    Some conservatives insisted upon unity with Bush after 9/11 (certainly, there was no fairness or unity before then), and to some extent it was there for about 18 months.  I don't think conservatives were ever right to ask for "unity" - let alone demand it.  Democrats and liberals were right to protest those who tried to shut down debate with calls for "unity" (what many of those same individuals didn't show is respect or dignity in their ceaseless and highly personal attacks on Bush from day one). I want dissent from both sides, but I also want it with the recognition that we're still all Americans with much in common and with respect and dignity.  Often, disagreement is falsely equated with disrespect for emotional or tactical reasons, but that is not logically or practically necessary.

    I do think that what we should demand is dignity and respect from both sides, even in disagreement.  The "losing coach" doesn't go to mid-field after the loss because they are "unified" or happy about the loss or even believe the victor was better (and often sports, like life, doesn't reward the "better" team, except in a sort of "definitional" way if you define victory as better on that given day) - they go to mid-field out of respect and with dignity. I'd note that winners can just as easily show disrespect and lack of dignity in winning, as well.

    That said, I see nothing wrong with (and think it is important to actually do) praising the historicity of the moment and letting the other side have their day or enjoyment. First, this inauguration is different than say, Bill Clinton's, or any Democrat.  Even in losing, the Republicans can lay positive historical claim to creating the moral (and legal) conditions in America necessary for a black (or bi-racial) man ascending to the office. For without the Republican Party, we'd neither be a nation nor free from slavery. But we shouldn't need that claim or historical fact to allow others their enjoyment or respect for at least the positive parts of the moment.  Indeed, the comparison to the position in history, slavery, and respect for the dignity of all individual human life should not be lost - the very positive TV ad by the Catholic council that praises the moment of the first black president arising from a single mother's life choice and struggle is far more effective than sour grapes. In biblical terms, one can praise the positive (or recognize the beauty) in anything (including the mostly ugly) while still recognizing that everyone is an imperfect being living in sin and that there is the possibility for redemption for all through forgiveness.


    Chetly Zarko
    Outside Lansing & Oakland Politics

    Display: Sort:

    Login

    Make a new account

    Username:
    Password:
    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search