Back in the midst of the George W. Bush Administration liberals had few news sources which would try to shine a light on the corruption of that presidency. “Mainstream” media refused to sully their hands and Fox News would’ve proclaimed Bush the Second Coming if he had changed his name. But we had Keith Olbermann. He did “The Nexus of Politics and Terror,” his Special Comments called for Bush to resign, he liberalized MSNBC to become the progressive answer to Fox News. And then…the administration changed. And then…I realized something. Perhaps I had changed. Perhaps he had changed. But it seemed he was spewing as much hatred as those he feels are his enemies.
A case in point: the Haitian Earthquake. Much has been said about Pat Robertson’s and Rush Limbaugh’s comments on the tragedy. Robertson said the Haitians had made a deal with the devil and Limbaugh believed Obama would use it as a political ploy. Olbermann admonished them in one of his “Quick Comments:”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-PEaWUduCM&feature=player_embedded
But he went a step further. He said, “Mr. Robertson, Mr. Limbaugh, your lives are not worth those of the lowest, meanest, poorest of those victims still lying under that rubble in Haiti tonight. “ Really?! So if Rush and Pat were buried in the rubble, struggling just to breath, they are not worth saving? But a Haitian thug also buried, also struggling to breath, is worth saving? I am not saying that the thug is not worth saving while Rush and Pat are. I am saying that they all are. True, Pat Robertson is a disgusting excuse for a human being, and Limbaugh is not much better. And our hypothetical Haitian thug I wouldn’t want to meet. Yet all three deserve compassion. Whatever happened to “turn the other cheek,” not separating self from other? We are our brothers’ (and sisters’) keepers, even if we do not agree with them. How does it go? “Hate the sin but love the sinner?” Robertson or Limbaugh do not get that. And neither does Olbermann.
Another term for liberal is progressive. Perhaps a euphemism for the “L” word, but sometimes I like the progressive term better. Progressives move forward, always with the implication of toward a better world. And the opposite of progressive is not conservative; it’s regressive. Regressives would have us moving backward, toward a more savage and brutal world, where we were always fighting. No one would willingly call themselves a regressive, but their philosophy would be the natural opposite to progressive. Sometimes I think 100% of Washington is regressive, like that old joke: “What’s the opposite of progress? Congress!” And a lot of media is regressive. Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, and Keith Olbermann are regressives.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)