Krempasky on Domenech
Here’s a thoughtful post by Mike Krempasky on the Ben Domenech plagiarism scandal. We also think it has an unfortunate flaw — which we’ll explain at the end.
Excerpt:
A young man took something and called it his own. He owes apologies to those writers, his editors, and especially his friends who have rushed to his defense in the past 48 hours. It is an embarrassing offense — and one rightly criticized.All of the leadership of RedState has struggled mightily over the past few days, and have tried at every step to take the right course of action. Now that the story is complete, we can move on…
And for his failing, his career is in ruins, and his public reputation is in tatters. It is a long road back for Ben Domenech. And he’s going to pay a steep price to regain lost trust among colleagues, readers, and friends.
And you know what? He’ll take the time to wander in the wilderness as he rightly should. He’ll walk that road. The least the rest of us can do is be waiting for him at its end. So today, the world thinks ill of Ben Domenech. But perhaps it should step back a bit. His crime was not mortal, and his character is not irredeemable. Indeed, most of his friends believe this episode a deviation from a core character that is fundamentally good. He is my friend. He is our friend and will remain so. He needs some time away from this — and he’ll get it in the form of a leave of absence.
Putting aside the charge for which Ben has been pilloried and you’re left with is a particular group of critics. Unlike Ben, there is far less hope for their redemption. You see — before they settled on the attacks on his writing — they spent three days proving that they are the lowest of the low. Charges of racism were born of poor reading comprehension. Threats of violence. Obscene commentary about his mother, his sister, his father. Loathesome, vile, and disgusting - their contempt for civil behavior surpassed only by the emptiness of their own souls. These are a people that see a man who gives up drinking in the middle of his life for the sake of his family, and respond by creating rumors of cocaine addiction. These are ignoramuses that think portraying an African-American politician as Sambo is appropriate, as long as the critics are liberal and the target is a Republican.
Our critics can raise their glasses and toast to what they think is success — tearing down a flawed conservative. But therein lies their greatest weakness: destroying a conservative is not to destroy conservatism. And while they put all their energy and venom into this campaign, it is worth remembering that for all the noise — they have yet to present a real alternative to an America that rests on the foundation of freedom, free markets and family. Against that, the only answer they have is yet another personal attack.
We agree with Mike that much of the criticism of Ben has been beyond the pale. Many of the attacks have been simply inexcusable.
What we don’t understand — and perhaps never will — is how an intelligent person like Mike can associate such personal attacks with a particular half of the political spectrum. It should be patently obvious to anyone paying attention that both conservatives and liberals resort to such reprehensible tactics on a daily basis.
Listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly — every single day. Read Michelle Malkin. We could document here a zillion examples of vicious ad hominem attacks by these people on their opponents. (And by the left on theirs, by the way. It’s the reason we’re planning a second blog.)
People have said that in our commentary, Media Orchard is left of center. Perhaps we are. But we have never been so blinded by our beliefs as to think that one side or another is composed of “better people.”
Mike, listen to what you’re saying about your opponents:
… they have yet to present a real alternative to an America that rests on the foundation of freedom, free markets and family. Against that, the only answer they have is yet another personal attack.
Mike, do you honestly believe that there is no alternative to our current administration? Many traditional conservative thinkers don’t even believe that George Bush is conservative — certainly not in his fiscal policy, or his approach to foreign policy. And among those who advocate a greater regulatory role for government, or an enhanced social welfare system, or a reduced influence for big business, there is not one — but many — reasoned alternatives to what our current government is offering.
No — it’s not about an absence of ideas or alternatives. The personal attacks on Ben are an unfortunate byproduct of an entire political system that has devolved into one of personal attacks — from the highest levels of government, down to bloggers with three or four regular readers.
Our first step in moving beyond this morass is to recognize that both the left and the right are responsible for it.
Where you go wrong is in equating the horde that went after Domenech to such excess — the threats to rape his sister, the accusation he had sex with his mother and the others that went way over the line — with Limbaugh, Hannity, and Malkin. They may go over the line from time to time, but the vast majority of what they say is civil. The hatefulness in the crusade against Domenech came more from the little fish. You can read it in the comments on Kos. The right analogy is the righty comments you can easily find at Free Republic.
David: You’re right that Rush doesn’t threaten to rape his opponents’ sisters. But I would never describe Rush, Malkin, Coulter and company as “civil” — in their own, slightly more subtle way, they oversimply the debate and demonize those with different views.
Scott, I think you’ll find that I hardly mean all my opponents. I work/drink/fight/argue/compete with Democrats/Liberals all the time.
No - this is reserved for that fringe that did resort to the garbage.
Thanks for clarifying, Mike. I’d assume you’d also acknowledge, then, that this fringe exists on both ends of the political spectrum.
But of course. From a political perspective - I think it’s worthwhile to compare some of the leaders of the charge on this one to Jerry Falwell flacking for the “Clinton Chronicles’ during the impeachment.
Yep, that was pretty brutal. Too bad the Pres couldn’t have sued for libel on that one.
But the whole point of the Bad Pundit blog that I hope to begin soon is that there is precious little debate — reasoned debate — of real issues today. Among politicians, pundits, media and –unfortunately — bloggers. And I think of all these groups, bloggers have the least excuse for not acting responsibly. Because since most of us don’t get paid squat, there’s NO ONE — not paid subscribers, or corporate overlords, or political donors — forcing us to degenerate the debate. We have no one to answer to but ourselves.
You’d be on more solid ground if you had a specific example of something equally hate-filled that Malkin had said; then again you’d probably have to search for a long time. Much easier to just claim she’s done it.
Pat:
Well, just off the top of my head, how about this:
“While Haleigh clings to life, I’ve pondered how we might help persuade the plug-pullers to put off the child’s state-sanctioned death sentence. I propose nominating her for a Nobel Prize. It bought Tookie Williams five extra years.”
Her exploitation of that little girl and her family was pretty heartless. Of course, I try not to read her regularly, so I’m guessing you’ve seen many more examples and just read right over them.
I wasn’t aware that any of Domenech’s critics were also frauds and liars.
Domenech is a fraud and a liar. There is no reasonable explanation as to how he got the job he was so clearly unqualified for, unless it is another case, like Armstrong Williams, of a paid political operative using a journalistic platform. The prostitute James Guckert, who somehow was issued a White House press pass under a false name, also comes to mind. Bob Novak, who published the name of a CIA agent. Judith Miller, who was a conduit for disinformation leading up to the invasion of Iraq. There seem to be quite a few irregularities among conservative “journalists,” and I use that word only because there is no suitable synonym.
Instead of attacking those who criticize unethical behavior, try to figure out why so many conservative pundits are saddled with ethical shortcomings.
Repack,
Yes, Ben did unethical things. He got what he deserved.
However, threatening to rape his sister is not an appropriate way to criticize Ben.
That this happened should be enough to demonstrate to you that problems with civility exist on both ends of the political spectrum.
By focusing on the pundits, rather than the ideas expressed, we lower the level of the debate.