Let me propose a litmus test for all politicians.
When someone says something controversial, before reacting to imagine that the polar opposite politician had said the same thing.
John Gresham in his book A Time to Kill used that simple device in a summation. I'm not a big Gresham fan, but there it is.
Imagine, for example, David Vitter had said before any audience;
I want to make sure that when you're firing your bullets because you're dissatisfied you fire them at the right folksDo you think there would have been calls to lynch him?
3 comments:
I agree with the principle in general, but it's a little simplistic. The same words said by different people often take on a new context.
I'm sorta unclear on the example used here. Nagin's quote was a careless one, but were there calls to "lynch" him, after he said it?
Is Vitter supposed to be Nagin's polar opposite?
I also agree with the principle, but I'd also add that Vitter isn't a New Orleans politician -- he's not primarily associated with a city with a rising crime rate. From my point of view, he's seems to represent the rest of the state more than the city; he's certainly not helping the city maintain and develop a medical corridor.
In this I think that the ridiculous over-reaction to Nagin's poor choice of words was based on the fact that indignation is easier than analysis. I personally have no use for politicians or pundits or bloggers who constantly do the indignation thing. I even thought the "that part of the world" on Bush's part was a little overdone.
Post a Comment