April 23, 2005
Blue State Values
Apropos of the comment below, Amy Welborn writes an open letter to Maureen Dowd telling her to shut up. Dowd tries to draw a comparison between Pope Benedict XVI and Dick Cheney. The problem is she knows nothing about the Catholic Church. Welborn writes:
But maybe I just don't get it. I've got a Master's degree in religion, I've taught school, and I've written a slew of books. I value understanding, knowledge, research and the truth. I am loathe to open my mouth and opine about anything unless I really have looked into it. There's a couple of reasons for that: first, I like to be based in reality. Secondly: I don't like looking stupid. Is that not a Blue State value?
What is Dowd's problem with Benedict? He "wants to dismantle Vatican II and go back to 1397." Does she know that Ratzinger was one of the most influential figures of the Second Vatican Council? Does she know that he was one of the leading progressive figures at Vatican II and was considered and opponent of the traditionalist factions there? No. She can't be bothered to actually learn anything about Church history. She's too busy writing about it.
What else is wrong with him? "As a scholar, his specialty was 'patristics,' the study of the key thinkers in the first eight centuries of the church." He studies the Church Fathers! Oh dear Lord, we are all doomed! I wonder if Maureen knows that there are "classicists" that study even older writers. They must be really reactionary.
I don't think this has anything to do with a blue state/red state (or one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish) mental divide. It has to do with dishonest or ignorant polemics (the two are often hard to distinguish) versus honest, well-researched opinions. Welborn's dig at liberals is unnecessary; she falls prey to precisely what she's criticizing, though to a lesser degree than Dowd.
I hereby propose a non-partisan/bi-partisan coalition of rational, fact-based thinkers versus the ignorant, the hypocrites, the liars, and the manipulators. The only requirements to join are a respect for reason, evidence, logic, facts, science, learning, and open-mindedness. Then, rather than simplistic binary thinking that lumps all people into one of two colors, we can treat the specifics of an argument or a the specifics of why an argument fails.
I am in total agreement with your amazement at Dowd's offhand comment that Ratzinger "wants to dismantle Vatican II." Obviously, there are people who do want to dismantle Vatican II, but they despise Pope Benedict XVI, and every other pope going back to Pius XII. Dowd can pass off this conventional wisdom tripe - through the checks of her msm editors - because it fits her prejudice and the prejudices of her editors and, presumably, a large part of her readership.
There is a red state/blue state issue and it is largely that the blue state folk, like Dowd, have been told for so long that they are the intellectual masters of the universe, that they've grown fat and lazy. By and large, the red staters can't afford to simply ignore those buried assumptions.