Apparently Kathleen Parker has a problem with Barack Obama. In a particularly incoherent editorial entitled "El panderosa," (Shouldn't it really be el panderoso?) she criticizes Barack Obama's so-called pandering to the Hispanic community. Except her claims are completely illegitimate and the editorial flails wildly, trying to get any claim to stick to Obama.
She starts by accusing both Obama and McCain of pandering, but are there any specific complaints levied against McCain? Of course not. Next, Obama tells individuals' stories in his speeches, while McCain's are filled with substantive policy points (read: abburidos). THOSE ARE THEIR RESPECTIVE RHETORICAL STYLES. That doesn't mean Obama doesn't have policies to deal with the problems. And because "[p]oetry is in the DNA of this romantic, passionate people," his rhetoric is an obvious pander.
Ms. Parker then seizes on this quote by Obama:
Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English, they'll learn English, you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.
She concedes that Americans would benefit from learning a foreign language, but then attacks Obama for not encouraging immigrants to learn English. She misses his point completely; he didn't say that immigrants shouldn't try to assimilate into American society, or even that they shouldn't learn English. His intent is to dispel the stereotype of the lazy, uneducated immigrant, when most immigrants work hard to learn English and improve their lives.
Ms. Parker, before you writes your next editorial, I recommend that you (and anyone else) consider this: Is a statement really a pander if it's something they truly believe?
No comments:
Post a Comment