Myrna Minkoff vs. Sam Brownback

One of the more annoying aspects of the whole Amanda Marcotte affair was the fact that various young liberals I respect felt the need - out of friendship, or a desire to circle the wagons, or a little of both - to use the controversy as an occasion to throw valentines to the Minkoff of the blogosphere, describing themselves as "big fans" of her work and praising her "gifted, expressive, and wide-ranging" writing style.

That would be this Amanda Marcotte, just so we're clear. I would have described her prose as "Menckenesque," myself, but to each his own ...

Comments

hey ross, you're a great "prose stylist"TM!!! here's the funniest thing that suggests to me she aint' the sharpest tool in the shed:
"Is there any silver lining to the whole incident? "One good thing that happened," she says, "is that it highlighted for bloggers what we’re up against here. It drew a lot of attention to the way that the right wing has this enormously well-funded noise machine, and how well it works. The posts that Donohue dug up were really old, so they’ve obviously got oodles of money to research stuff like this. It’s clear that the Catholic league has this huge backfile of stuff they’re waiting to use."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/18/114544/633

i had to wonder if marcotte was being ironic here, so i asked a friend who is a fan. he thinks she's being serious when she says that about having to have expensive researchers to look through her archives. i guess she didn't pay attention when some of her defenders backhandedly complimented her by wondering why the edwards campaign hadn't taken 5 minutes to do a google search of her website (i can think of some 50 queries in the next 5 minutes, now is the catholic league gonna pay me the big bucks for that?).

Posted by razib | June 4, 2007 8:51 PM

The reat Myrna Minkoff reference explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Confederacy_of_Dunces#Myrna_Minkoff

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 4, 2007 8:58 PM

Zeitlin mixes valid criticisms with an absurd dropping of context. He quotes selectively from Marcotte's post, ignoring passages like this one, which help explain and abundantly justify her concern about the moral implications of populist conservative evangelical Christian politics: “That he excludes such religious people from the term 'people of faith' as Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, mainstream Protestants, and Jews—who don’t usually have religious objections to the scientific truth of evolution—indicates what game he’s playing here with the phrase 'people of faith'”.

It's not, in other words, so far as I can tell, a thoroughly ecumenical vision, or a thoroughly compassionate one, despite the laudable stances Zeitlin presents. Instead it's selectively compassionate, exhibiting recognizable compassion and concern only when considering circumstances it finds theologically palatable, rather than on the basis of a more humble and universalist egalitarian commitment rooted in the secular experience known as empathy. Gay people are unlikely to find themselves feeling loved by this agenda, or to perceive in Sen. Brownback's attitude toward them much recognition of the simple human “essential dignity” about which he professes concern in the context of scientific inquiry into human origins.

Posted by jason | June 5, 2007 12:44 AM

“That he excludes such religious people from the term 'people of faith' as Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, mainstream Protestants, and Jews—who don’t usually have religious objections to the scientific truth of evolution—indicates what game he’s playing here with the phrase 'people of faith'”.

1) brownback started out a mainstraem protestant (methodist)

2) converted to evangelical protestant xtianity

3) and then converted to catholicism

yes, catholicism, the faith which marcotte says brownback excludes from 'people of faith.' so i ask you, who is more ignorant, she who spouts this nonsense, or he who repeats it without noting the fallacy.

Posted by razib | June 5, 2007 1:42 AM

jason quoted Marcotte out of context. The idea was that Brownback had equated "people of faith" with "opponent of evolution". Since prominent Catholics, including both Benedict XVI and John Paul II, declared evolution compatible with their faith, the pope is actually excluded from being a person of faith.

I suppose Marcotte should have noted the convert-more-Catholic-than-the-pope irony...

Posted by Consumatopia | June 5, 2007 10:03 AM

razib,
I was really exhausted when I wrote my post; I indeed knew Brownback is Catholic. But even had I not been, the point you raise might have slipped by me, because Marcotte's observation in that passage points to a larger issue that I got to thinking about and that is tangential to your correction. I doubt this fatigue-abetted oversight makes me "ignorant"; sloppy, in this instance, undoubtedly (although Consumatopia's point is worthwhile).

But labels aside, that larger issue I got to thinking about is this: to appropriate the "people of faith" nomenclature in support of one's own political program and one's particular sectarian view is a parochial and overbroad bit of rhetorical trickery, and a nasty one. It carries connotations of moral elitism anathema to the more universal and democratic language that appeals to the rights and responsibilities we have as citizens. Noncitizens, of course, have (different but important) rights and responsibilities as well, which is why humanists, religious and secular, also use the language of human rights.

Posted by jason | June 5, 2007 12:09 PM

Addendum: Not every reference to "people of faith" is illegitimate, of course -- the term does describe a discrete constituency -- but the divisive and disingenuous usage I describe above is quite prevalent.

Posted by jason | June 5, 2007 12:14 PM

people of faith seems just another stupid way to "frame." i have no idea why you people are reading so much into it, yes, a bunch of sectarians took up a word which is redolent of 'people of color' to accrue to themselves positive connotations. that doesn't make it obviously transparent.

Posted by razib | June 5, 2007 1:11 PM

I think you are giving Amanda Marcotte WAY to much credit.

She has run one of the most adolescent and obscene leftist blogs on the web. Invective, slur & pandering is the modus vivendi of such sites.

John Edward decides to run for president and knows that #1. He needs to capture the far left base & #2. the “netroots” (like Howard Dean did) is the new key for outreach.

So he hires some well known (on the blogo-sphere) bloggers who have built their reputations and popularity on being fierce & raunchy leftists.

Bill Donohue comes along and merely shines a light exactly how fierce & raunchy these leftists really are.

Main stream America now (rightly) rejects such an approach and John Edward fires these campaign workers.

It seems to me that politics as it should be.

Posted by Fitz | June 5, 2007 1:38 PM

"people of faith seems just another stupid way to "frame." i have no idea why you people are reading so much into it, yes, a bunch of sectarians took up a word which is redolent of 'people of color' to accrue to themselves positive connotations. that doesn't make it obviously transparent."

I often appreciate your insights but on this I think you’re wrong. "People of faith" just seems like ecumenism shorthand convenience for social conservatives and religious.

The term "people of color" is not often heard even in liberal circles. I find it hard to believe that its "redolence" is esteemed enough & obvious enough that a term like "people of faith' could or would piggy back upon it.

Posted by Fitz | June 6, 2007 1:44 PM