|
July 30, 2010
"freedom to think what they want to think"
Anyone who thinks that Andrew Breitbart is the inflexible and rigid "authoritarian" that John Dean says he is should read his Newsweek interview: If Sherrod wanted to meet with you, what would you tell her?It's my goal too! Breitbart has touched on something very important, and it has long been one of my pet peeves about identity politics. Regardless of whether you're liberal, conservative, libertarian, communitarian, religious, atheist, if you are not allowed to think what you think about a given issue, then you are simply less than a free citizen. I have repeatedly argued that to the extent gays are not free to take whatever positions they want on issues, they are second-class citizens, and to see Breitbart saying essentially the same thing about black people confirms in my mind that not only is he not a racist, but he's about as far from being a racist as it's possible to be. For the umpteenth time, if you don't have the freedom to make up your mind independently, you are less than a free citizen. I wrote this post because I think Breitbart's remarks will be spun by the left only as a sort of shilling for the cause black conservatism, for he obviously supports black conservatives, and the left is very threatened by that. But that would be wrong, for it misses the larger (and even more threatening to the left) issue of citizens being free to make up their own minds. (No minor point. I've been carping about it for over seven years....) UPDATE: Thanks to Memeorandum for the link! posted by Eric on 07.30.10 at 10:36 PM |
|
August 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
August 2010
July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
the bigoted nature of identitarianism makes me want to find a "tribe"
Who gets to elect our "cultural" representatives? Sweetening the pot -- NOT! "freedom to think what they want to think" A surprising and hopefully sincere apology To the authoritarian ruling class, dissenters are "authoritarians"! The Tea Party may have "wings," but no one can clip them! Obama's Katrina: Did Admin Policies/Incompetence Cause The Oil Spill? Atomic Time The Inertia Question
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Breitbart can think as he pleases, say what he pleases, and publish what he pleases. However, if he defames someone, he is liable to civil suit. This is part of "the rule of law" that so many of today's faux conservatives claim to respect, until it produces results they don't like.