In the middle of making some point or other having to do with Chris Christie, our ink-stained wretch drops this gem:
(emphasis added)
Possible interpretations of the thought inside Cohen’s head that transmogrified into this particular serving of word salad, roughly ordered from “insulting to readers’ intelligence” to “offensive to human decency”:
[ul]
[li]Conservatives are squicked out by interracial marriage, but that doesn’t mean that they’re racist.[/li]
[li]Normal Americans “with conventional views” are squicked out by interracial marriage, independent of political affiliation.[/li]
[li]Interracial marriage is inherently squicky.[/li][/ul]
The one interpretation I can think of that is rooted in some form of rational logic:
[ul]
[li]The Washington Post is offering a generous buyout, but it’s only available to the people they really want to get rid of, like the setup at Pacific Bell that inspired Scott Adams to create the “Wally” character in Dilbert.[/li][/ul]
That paragraph almost feels like a bad edit slipped in (or bad writing was not caught by good editing).
My take is that he meant to say that a segment of the conservative base is still squicked out by miscegenation (not to mention lesbians) but that this does not made the party as an entity racist. That despite the party not being racist, the rasicm of some individuals within it a troubling divide, and large enough, that it will make things difficult for moderate conservatives who don’t have such hang ups.
Though how citing a liberal Democrat’s marriage matters, is a weird jump.
So I think he was a) insulting to Iowa Republicans by ascribing to them a racist position that likely very few of them hold (or, if they do, not providing any evidence for it and b) sloppy in not drawing a clear line about the party not being racist as a whole even if a subset of members are.
But considering just how awful Cohen has been on race issues (just a week or two ago in fact with his 12 Years a Slave column) I think he may have blinders that make it difficult for him to see how others will read his words on the topic.
Well, I read it to read the conventional view amongst Iowan GOP Primary voters. That isn’t mathematically impossible, only something like 4% of Iowans participated in the 2012 GOP primary, while something like 16% (!) of midwesterners disapprove of inter-racial marriage.
So not impossible, but its a pretty incendiary claim, so if Cohen is going to make it, he ought to support it with something.
But given the guys history, I kinda suspect he’s just projecting his own “gag reflex” onto other people. Especially since the point is kind of out of left field in an article about Cristie’s Presidential chances. So far as I know, Cristie hasn’t fathered any bi-racial children, and he’s pretty far from de Blasio politically, and in just about every other way other then the fact that NJ shares part of its border with NYC.
Wait a minute. She “used to be a lesbian”? Is that something she says, or something he made up based on misunderstanding her history and self-identification?
She wrote an article in the 70’s entitled “I am a Lesbian” which seems pretty clear-cut.
Not sure what a guy in a different state and from a different political party marrying a woman who identified as a lesbian thirty years ago has to do with Chris Christie’s electoral prospects in Iowa though.
I don’t know much about Cohen, but that’s the obvious conclusion. And he was making a generalization, not talking about Iowa specifically.
It looks like there are some other dumb mistakes in this column. For example there’s that comment about Chirlane McCray and no mention of the fact that Iowa has recognized same-sex marriage since 2009, and he also seemed to misunderstand what was going on with Christie’s lawsuit in New Jersey: gay marriages were going to be recognized there whether Christie dropped his challenge or not.
Since it follows the paragraph about Iowa primary voters, I read it as being about Iowa. But since the whole article is a mess, it’s admittedly not clear. I’d even be willing to believe even Cohen didn’t really think out what he was talking about.
Yea, I think that’s the main take-away here. Whether racist or not, the article is just kind of a lazy, phoned-in mess. It makes a point that a million people have already made before (“moderate Republicans like Christie will have problems winning primaries in fly-over country”), and then just kinda babbles for a few paragraphs about how he googled up some websites from Iowa. His arguments aren’t convincing, and in many cases, as with the “gag reflex” thing, its not even clear what the arguments are.
It’s annoying that Cohen has such a high-profile, presumably high paying job, and makes such a mess of it. I’m sure there are plenty of talented writers from either side of the political spectrum who could use the same space to make cognizant arguments in support of non-obvious conclusions.
Yeah, Richard Cohen has some issues. I remember him blaming the Jayson Blair (Jayson Blair - Wikipedia) false reporting on affirmative action which is possible but he did little more than assert it.
Then in another column, he went on about how the Iraq war is not about Israel but it’s really crucial for Israel. Not a strict contradiction but a strange way to make a point. I noticed that he seemed to lack/not use basic fact checks when he mentioned that 90% of the Israeli population lives in two cities. 90% of the Israeli population lives in cities, not two cities.
But he’s not the only Washington Post columnist to use sophistry. I’m thinking that some of them are chosen specifically for that reason to get people riled up and get publicity/views.
I guess, but you can get people riled up with cogent arguments. The question of how much of the GOP primary voting base is still bothered by inter-racial marriage is something that’s both interesting and more or less guaranteed to get people riled, whatever the conclusion of the article is.
But Cohen just kinda throws it out there in the midst of an unrelated article. And its not clear what he’s actually saying about it: what does “conventional views” mean and who “people” are in the context of the sentence? And what the hell does it have to do with Chris Christie and his white, non-ex-lesbian* wife.
If the Post wants to hear some rambling, train-of-thought, borderline racist political screeds that dip in and out of coherence, I know some aging bar-flies that would probably write the same columns in return for having their tab covered.
*(I assume, I don’t actually know anything about Christie’s wife)
Golly, that poor man, now having the incredibly immense burden of knowing the truth about slavery after somehow being able to live with his head so far up his own ass that he somehow wasn’t aware of this strange notion that slavery is bad, mmkay?.
