Tuesday, November 17, 2009

From The Middle

I have pondered this very question many times reading things like Salon or NYT, what makes them the keeper's of middle ground, what makes them decide they speak for all that is decent and good?

But according to what dispensation are entities like The New York Times and Media Matters, individuals like Burns and Krugman, endowed with that coveted imprimatur? Who says that they get to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable to polite company? That they get to stake out what counts as "the middle ground"? To decide what "elevates" and what is merely ideological pandering?

Roger Kimball explores these thoughts on a piece about the Lou Dobbs, a man didn't fall so easily into a left or right camp, but who some would demonize because he tended to see illegal immigration and overall immigration policy as a problem.

via Insty

By the way, I want to add that I'm really sick of people who proclaim to be bearers of middle ground, the moderates. As if caring about something or strongly believing in something makes you crazy. It's one thing to be an Independent because you don't like one party or another, but it's a whole other animal to condescend to anyone who holds an allegiance to an ideology or political party. You're not better than people who hold specific believes that can be easily identified as right or left, Republican or Democrat, the so called Independent who relishes in his/her role as the "sane" one is just as prejudiced as anyone else. They just like to tell themselves they are cooler, more levelheaded. Wow you like gay marriage and lower taxes - and you hate the Dems as much as you hate the Repub.? Guess what that's like most Americans!

No comments: