In his Friday "Political Memo," "Firing Up the Faithful With Echoes of Culture War Rhetoric," the New York Times's conservative-beat reporter David Kirkpatrick, watching the Republican Convention, uniquely managed to hear echoes of the GOP's 1992 convention -- specifically what Kirkpatrick called the "belligerence" of Pat Buchanan's "cultural war" speech, widely cited in the media (though not necessarily at the time) as leading to the downfall of the Bush-Quayle re-election campaign. Yet Kirkpatrick's argument boils down to just one social issue -- abortion:
Rudolph W. Giuliani, a former mayor of New York, said Senator Barack Obama thought a small Alaska suburb was not "flashy enough" or "cosmopolitan enough," linking his campaign to "Hollywood celebrities." Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, denounced the "Eastern elites" that he said dominated the television broadcasts and editorial pages.
Fred D. Thompson, a former Tennessee senator turned actor, mocked Mr. Obama for trying to deflect questions about the science and theology of abortion, promising the Republican convention audience that Senator John McCain would be "a president who doesn't think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade."
And the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as the Republican vice-presidential nominee put the abortion issue center stage: A committed Christian conservative, she has been a hero to the anti-abortion movement since she gave birth to a child with Down syndrome last spring.
The Republican National Convention this week in Minneapolis-St. Paul hardly measures up to the belligerence of Patrick J. Buchanan's 1992 call for a "cultural war," but some of the same refrains are playing in the background. "If you want to define your party, you have got to say who you are," Gary Bauer, a Christian conservative political advocate, said approvingly.
....
The echoes of culture war rhetoric are a notable change from the Republican conventions of 2000 and 2004, when many social conservatives like Mr. Bauer complained that President Bush's campaign had hidden them and their issues from the cameras. Mr. Bush, while known to oppose abortion rights, preferred to discuss the issue with gentle euphemisms to avoid turning off more moderate voters. During the debates over his Supreme Court nominations, the liberal activists on the other side chose to play down abortion and other social issues as well.
Kirkpatrick could have argued that the GOP is talking up abortion because their opponent Barack Obama is such a liberal extremist on the issue -- witness his failure to support bans on partial birth abortion or even to protect victims of botched abortions delivered alive -- facts the Times has been reluctant to acknowledge.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This story must have been
September 5, 2008 - 17:40 ET by Chris NormanThis story must have been written before the convention even began. Any GOP belligerence was caused by the overt and obnoxious belligerence of the NYT and their fellow travelers in the media towards Republicans and especially Sarah Palin. They don't like it when Republicans get uppity and try to win elections.
McNotObama '08
Kirkpatrick falsely alleged
September 6, 2008 - 03:13 ET by TEKirkpatrick falsely alleged in his editorial that Buchanan "call[ed] for a 'cultural war.'" Buchanan did no such thing as "call for a 'cultural war.'" Buchanan simply acknowledged the existence of the cultural war. Of course, Kirkpatrick conveniently provided only two words (i.e., "cultural war") uttered by Buchanan to "support" his claim that Buchanan was "call[ing] a 'cultural war.'"
What Buchanan actually said: "There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself."
Buchanan wasn't "call[ing]" for anything but for Americans to return fire against the Democrat party's cultural war against America.
Kirkpatrick falsifies the Buchanan speech
September 5, 2008 - 21:07 ET by Alfred J. LemireTE beat me to the point, with a terrific and perceptive post. I'll elaborate. David Kirkptrick cited "the belligerence ofPatrick J. Buchanan's 1992 call for a 'cultural war,' " and the "echoes of culture war rhetoric ." I watched the ABC transmission of the Buchanan speech and recall Ted Koppel questioning how the call for culture war would play outside the hall. I had heard something different. C-SPAN repeated the 1992 speeches in 1996; so I taped Buchanan's speech and transcribed the remarks:
“Friends, this election is about more than who gets what. It is about who we are.It is about what we believe and what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in this country. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we shall be as the Cold War itself. For this war is for the soul of America. And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton and Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side.” [Emphases added.]
Buchanan is Maureen Dowd with an XY chromosome, fighting with words rather than in bars, and egotistical, too. He should have cited the book from which his language and perceptions were drawn, "Culture Wars," by Prof. James Davison Hunter. Despite his pugnacious persona, he did not "call for 'cultural war' "; he said it existed. Note ten instances of the verb "to be," plus "gets," "believe," or "stand." Those aren't the verbs one usesuse to call for cultural war, or declare it, or any of the other falsifications used by suppsedly mainstream news media people, like E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post and Gwen Ifill, now with PBS.
Dale A. Berryhill wrote a short softcover, from Huntington House Publishers, ripping into the press falsification of Buchanan's speech. I write as a former newspaper reporter. The staffs of the WaPo and the Bad Times of New York and of most of the MSM disgrace the work of bringing the news to the people. They cannot be fair or, as the Kirkpatrick tale demonstrates, accurate. Th Bad Times ignored the John Edwards escapade but has sailed into the behavior of members of Gov. Palin's family with great zeal. The newspaper now prints all the news that furthers its own side in the cultural war and ignores or falsifies that which does not. Disgusting.
Notice how they don't
September 5, 2008 - 21:54 ET by mattmNotice how they don't address the actual substance of what was being said? They just repeat what was said, but they don't refute it on point; they merely use it as an excuse to accuse republicans of some evil or another.
The Left uses terms like 'nazi' 'mean' 'belligerent' etc. because they can't refute the truth. Whining like spoiled little brats and pointing fingers is all they have, apparently.
Apologies for typos and a revised description
September 6, 2008 - 14:10 ET by Alfred J. LemireI regret typos in my earlier post; I wrote too fast and it shows.
The expression I now use to describe much of the news media--whether they are in a "mainstream" is debatable--is that they are extremely corrupt, grossly incompetent, and blindly partisan, but perhaps that should be reworded, since I think the partisanship leads to the other two flaws. Perhaps it's better to describe much of today's press as blindly partisan and therefore extremely corrupt and grossly incompetent. I'd love to debate someone on that. There's no fun in crushing an opponent, but the press badly needs reform and must be shamed into changing its ways.