Remain true to principles
Phil Dillon - Emporia
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
THERE’S NO DOUBT about it. Those who write for the Emporia Gazette are free to express whatever opinions they desire.
If the Gazette wants to puff John McCain, Barack Obama, or Bigfoot they have that right. If someone were to attempt to take that right away I think it would be every Emporian’s duty to come to their aid with words, blunderbusses or any other instrument necessary to preserve their freedom of expression.
No matter what label we prefer — Conservative, Liberal, etc., the foundations of free speech benefit us enormously.
Although I disagree with many of the Gazette’s opinions, I respect their craft.
Part of me understands Patrick Kelley’s frustration with political labels, particularly the terms “Conservative” and “Liberal.” Do they mean nothing at all? Are they as trivial as defined by Ambrose Bierce? “Conservative. n. a statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.”
But part of me doesn’t understand the frustration. While it’s true that some use labels as weapons or badges of scorn, most of us try our best to stay true to our core political principles. Do we work them out perfectly? No! We’re human, frail, often self-centered and self-serving. Sometimes our actions aren’t consistent with our beliefs. Does that mean that our core beliefs are meaningless or worthy of derision? No! It means that we are prone to stray from the things we say we hold most dear. The Emporia Gazette is a human institution with noble core principles, but those employed by the Gazette are every bit as prone to wander as the rest of us.
I try my best to live by Conservative principles, especially those outlined by Russell Kirk, considered by many to be the father of modern conservatism. He expressed six of these core beliefs is his masterwork The Conservative Mind. They are “(1) The belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. (2) Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence. (3) Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes as against the notion of a “classless society.” (4) Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked. Economic leveling is not economic progress. (5) Faith in prescription and distrust of ‘sophisters, calculators, and economists’ who would reconstruct society on abstract terms. (6) Recognition that hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress.” Do I live out my core beliefs perfectly? No! But I believe them and do my best to live up to them.
Can we avoid labels? No. In fact, I believe they can serve a useful purpose in political discourse. They can help clarify our political principles and positions. Should we use labels to marginalize those we disagree with? Of course not! But we do. For every Sean Hannity there’s a Keith Olbermann.
Can any one of us be truly objective in our political outlook? No. Newspaper readers will filter both front page and editorial page information through their respective political lenses. Editorial page editors will express opinions based in part on their own political philosophies. Reporters will occasionally tweak an inverted pyramid or a front page phrase in order to inject his or her political philosophy. One headline writer’s “Adoring Throngs” can just as easily be another’s “Fanatical Followers.” None of us is immune.
There’s a question that arises from this charged environment. Can we express our respective political philosophies respectfully? Can we return to “the better angels of our nature?”
No two were more different in their views on how to solve America’s slavery problem than Abraham Lincoln and Henry Clay. Yet, when Clay died in 1852, Lincoln eulogized him with the following words: “He was a patriot who loved his country partly because it was his own country, but mostly because it was a free country; and he burned with zeal for its advancement, prosperity, and glory, because he saw in such, the advancement, prosperity and glory, of human liberty, human right, and human nature.”
For better or worse, labeling will be part of the landscape of this election cycle. For every reader who sees the Emporia Gazette as a seedbed for socialism, there will be another (perhaps even a Gazette employee) who reads my words and labels me a war mongering, right wing fanatic.
Given that, I think the best we can do is to remain, as much as is possible, true to our principles.
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
Well put, Phil. The Gazette, overall, is fair minded in its news reporting, including headlining. They got a little carried away during the Watergate period, perhaps, but I will forgive them for that. The editorial writing is a different story. Editorials, by their nature, are opinion based, and like noses, everyone has one. We don't expect a great deal from a disgruntled citizen's Letter to the Editor ("wails," as we uniquely call them around here) about the poor treatment that he received from the police upon his arrest for bank robbery. Conversely, I think that we should expect something from the Editor of a fine newspaper. That something should be a well analyzed opinion inferred from facts. Spin is the domain of political campaigns, not the Editor's office. Unfortunately, that is what we seem to get from The Gazette. No longer can we read an editorial that causes us to examine our own opinions critically. Nowadays, we get yesterday's warmed over Democratic Party's talking points. I know many fine and reasonable Democrats, some of whom post on these boards, and I bet that even they want more than that. I know that I would if the color of the lipstick was red instead of blue.
September 25, 2008 at 12:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Interesting last few words, Netloafer. I've often wondered myself who would be complaining if TEG's editorials were more red. So, with the value of brevity in mind, I shall offer you this:
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them."
Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935
September 25, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Summer_Breeze (anonymous) says...
Phil, you expressed wonderfully what each of us should strive to accomplish! Thank you for being a voice of reason and thoughtfulness.
I think The Gazette generally does a fine job of news reporting (although the copy editing too often leaves much to be desired). And I agree with Jayhawker that "editorials, by their nature, are opinion based, and like noses, everyone has one." I disagree with Jayhawker's inference that simply because the editorial opinions expressed do not agree with his/her opinions, they are not "well analyzed" or they are "spin." I think Patrick Kelley's opinions are quite rational and as objective as any opinion can ever be. So I say--keep up the good work, Pat!
September 25, 2008 at 9 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I have never disagreed that editorials are opinion, and everyone is welcome to their own, including Pat. That does also not preclude people calling him on it when he does not do his homework, and his obvious spin (if you truly believe that only one side throws the mud and the other just "doesn't have the stomach for it", the you have my sincerest sympathies). I have never expected Pat to change his mindset or opinion any more than I expect a tiger to change its stripes, or for Keith Olbermann to wake up to the fact that other points of view just might actually have some validity if he stopped frothing a the mouth long enough to consider them. I've simply asked for an Alan Combes to balance Sean Hannity (yes, I reversed the order of those on purpose - I DO want to hear BOTH sides, and make up my OWN mind). But, if the Gazette can only afford one editorial staff member, then I think that person owes it to themself, let alone the readers, to try to be a little more objective and analytical.
September 25, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
create: I had forgotten Twain's quote. It reminds me of a friend I had in college with whom I regularly debated and discussed the issues of the day. We were opposites in our perspectives. He gave me his definitions of a conservative Republican (one who believes that you can never do anything for the first time) and a moderate Republican (one who believes that you can do something for the first time, but just not now). As a conservative Republican, I disagree with both Twain and my friend, but both represent the good humor that I wish we had more of in politics. Thanks for the post.
September 25, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )