I was deeply troubled, if not appalled, by a column that went into print last week ("The new American patriotism," Oct. 14) upon my original reading of it. The article's sub-headline read "Americans should unquestioningly accept the president's policies."
The title of the piece itself was what drew my attention to it in the first place, due to the shocking and blatantly ignorant nature of the subtitle. The piece criticized an SNL skit that essentially reported that Obama had accomplished nothing thus far in his presidency. I had seen the SNL skit before reading the article and while I cannot say the content was necessarily a perfect historical representation of his presidency, I was surely amused by the clip. However, the root of my critique does not lie within the debatable credibility and entertainment value of the skit itself, but rather the reckless and outlandish statements about public policy the author follows with.
The author criticizes the skit and claims it is un-American and un-patriotic. She makes the argument that President Obama "is simply too righteous a president to be subjected to any form of criticism, including a satirical portrayal on SNL" and "in the framework of the new spirit of American patriotism, there simply is no room for satire." Statements like these, literally twisted my insides.
What was this new "America patriotism" your columnist spoke of? One where leaders are not held accountable in the public eye? It is obvious that she has deep partisan ties with the left in the first place and if she were to argue that specific criticisms were unmerited or untrue, they may have been understandable and validated. However, to make the arguments that Obama himself is above criticism altogether and "no President with the charisma and job approval rating of Obama should ever be held accountable for any public policy missteps," is undoubtedly and 100% asinine.
However, in defense of the author, I was a bit misguided in my original interpretation of the article. Upon corresponding with The Cavalier Daily regarding the piece, I was informed that the author in fact wrote this piece as satire and was making the statements I found to be so outlandish sarcastically. This changed my image of the piece entirely, and directed my criticism and attention away from the columnist at hand, but to those, in mainstream America who actually agree with what she was written, whom she may have intended her criticism for. This message was somewhat ambiguous to me upon my original reading, but I was relieved to find my fears were not confirmed and was invigorated at the new controversy that had unfolded.
While it may have been your staff writer's intent to mock those who have views similar to those she portrays in her writing, the point she is making was not one to be taken lightly or trivially. She is in essence highlighting the fact that there are individuals out there, both in the media and not, who do in fact hold such jaded beliefs about how our leaders should be represented; which may be based in their strong partisan ties. She highlights that many individuals believe that some leaders, especially in a troubled age such as this, should receive and deserve the full support of the public on all matters. I have never found such a notion quite so dangerous in my life. No era is more in need of an assessment of the legitimacy of our government than now, in which there so much to be gained and lost. In my opinion, the type of reasoning she portrays in her article is far more destructive than the late night TV shows, town hall meetings, and media opinion columns she wishes to shun. How many voices do the people have if not in those places? To that point, while shows like SNL are aimed to entertain, their political commentaries, in addition to shows like those of Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert sometimes have as much truth in them as their disproportionately biased counterparts on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News.
In essence, it is my interpretation that people who actually believe this are calling for a restriction of the First amendment, and as a independent newspaper I am sure that many members of your staff understand the dangers of that statement which is perhaps why your columnist felt inspired to write on this topic. This was a powerful piece and one that makes some of the most frightening statements about political policy in America that I have ever encountered. Democracy derives its power from the people, and to silence those people is to silence democracy.
Bradley Whitwell\nCLAS I
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 2 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 4 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
