George Will Is A Tool
George Will, the allegedly intellectual conservative, is a pompous ass. No news to anyone who has heard him speak for five minutes, but it needs to be repeated. Will is a smug bastard who tries way too hard to be an erudite commentator. In a pathetic imitation of witty right-leaning pundits William Safire and William Buckley, Will uses odd word choices and awkward phrases in an attempt to sound sophisticated. His words do not enlighten or convince, however, they only obfuscate. Sophisticated thinkers don't work so hard to sound smart. Will's prose is belabored and intentionally, in my opinion, confusing. If a reader can't understand his sentences, it must be because the reader is too stupid to comprehend Will's genius, right? Surely not because the writing is bad.
Here is an example from his 5/25/06 column in The Washington Post: What makes Americans generally welcoming of immigrants, and what makes immigrants generally assimilable, is that this is a creedal nation, one dedicated to certain propositions, not one whose origins and identity are bound up with ethnicity. Note the phrasing: "assimilable" instead of "easily assimilated," "a creedal nation" instead of a "nation based on creed." You have to read the sentence three times to even get the point in the first place. Now is that the fault of the reader or the writer?
The content of that crappy sentence is that the United States welcomes immigrants because our nation is based on certain ideals, not on ethnic identity. This is an obvious point, and it contradicts the thesis of his column, that the English language should be the only allowed language on ballots. If the nation is not bound by ethnic identity as he claims, why should he want the ballot be in only one language? You can have a multi-cultural, multilingual functional democracy. See India, Canada, Switzerland, and Belgium. Canada also welcomes immigrants without being a "creedal nation" as Will so eloquently puts it.
Besides being a pedantic bore, George Will also displays a puerile nitpicking style. For someone who cares so much about the meaning of words, he sure get a lot of mileage out of a misleading definition of "racism." Will wonders why Senator Harry Reid called an English-only bill "racist." Will's dimwitted argument is that Reid can't mean "racist" since Spanish-speakers aren't a race. What a piddling comment. "Racist," in the common definition of everyone I know BUT George Will, applies to ethnic groups too. Obviously, a person who says "I hate Mexicans" would be called a racist. You could also call that person "ethnocentric" but "ethnocentric bastard" isn't as catchy, is it? Weren't Nazis racist? The Jews aren't a race; they're a religious and ethnic identity. According to George Will the Nazis can't be called racists. What, are you stupid?
Whether or not English-only laws are "racist" is another conversation, and not one that Will addresses in his column. Will makes a petty distinction about Reid's word choice, without discussing the validity of Reid's statement. Obviously Will wants to prove how much smarter he is than Reid. Making a rational intelligible argument is of secondary importance.
Here is an example from his 5/25/06 column in The Washington Post: What makes Americans generally welcoming of immigrants, and what makes immigrants generally assimilable, is that this is a creedal nation, one dedicated to certain propositions, not one whose origins and identity are bound up with ethnicity. Note the phrasing: "assimilable" instead of "easily assimilated," "a creedal nation" instead of a "nation based on creed." You have to read the sentence three times to even get the point in the first place. Now is that the fault of the reader or the writer?
The content of that crappy sentence is that the United States welcomes immigrants because our nation is based on certain ideals, not on ethnic identity. This is an obvious point, and it contradicts the thesis of his column, that the English language should be the only allowed language on ballots. If the nation is not bound by ethnic identity as he claims, why should he want the ballot be in only one language? You can have a multi-cultural, multilingual functional democracy. See India, Canada, Switzerland, and Belgium. Canada also welcomes immigrants without being a "creedal nation" as Will so eloquently puts it.
Besides being a pedantic bore, George Will also displays a puerile nitpicking style. For someone who cares so much about the meaning of words, he sure get a lot of mileage out of a misleading definition of "racism." Will wonders why Senator Harry Reid called an English-only bill "racist." Will's dimwitted argument is that Reid can't mean "racist" since Spanish-speakers aren't a race. What a piddling comment. "Racist," in the common definition of everyone I know BUT George Will, applies to ethnic groups too. Obviously, a person who says "I hate Mexicans" would be called a racist. You could also call that person "ethnocentric" but "ethnocentric bastard" isn't as catchy, is it? Weren't Nazis racist? The Jews aren't a race; they're a religious and ethnic identity. According to George Will the Nazis can't be called racists. What, are you stupid?
Whether or not English-only laws are "racist" is another conversation, and not one that Will addresses in his column. Will makes a petty distinction about Reid's word choice, without discussing the validity of Reid's statement. Obviously Will wants to prove how much smarter he is than Reid. Making a rational intelligible argument is of secondary importance.
posted by David Bowden at 2:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home