Tod Kelly, Ta-Nehisi Coates, et al. vs. Richard Cohen

BY4fCtnCYAArCGDTod Kelly’s second of two posts against the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen, written on the occasion of Cohen’s controversial column on Republicans in Iowa, follows the pattern of numerous other commentators in discovering opportunities to join harshly personal and calculatedly excessive invective to their prosecutions of the veteran pundit before a public court. Kelly’s main purpose seems to be to deny that “retroactive editing, context, and thoughtful reading” can rescue Cohen from widely offered charges against him. The idea for Kelly, as for others, would be that in key instances, even if someone else having written the same words might be seen merely to have expressed himself poorly, prior bad writerly acts should lead us to assume the worst about Cohen, not just as a columnist, but as a fellow citizen and human being.1

While pursuing a depiction of Cohen as a loosely defined “cultural conservative,” Kelly claims that Cohen “blame[d] the Steubenville football team’s rape of an unconscious minor on Miley Cyrus and that noise kids call music these days.” In the piece in question, however – a “Post-Partisan” blog post entitled “Miley Cyrus, Steubenville and teen culture run amok” – Cohen makes no claim or any observation at all about causes of the Steubenville crimes. Kelly next accuses Cohen of “having a tendency to describe men caught sexually harassing employees or raping minors as merely being guilty of ‘being a man.'” To suggest or to have a tendency to suggest that someone “caught engaging in sexual harrasment” or “raping minors” is merely “being a man” would be monstrous, but it turns out that Kelly has applied a comment regarding a re-airing of charges against Clarence Thomas to a separate column concerning Roman Polanski’s 1977 rape of Samantha Geimer and evasion of prosecution. The Thomas article, in which the phrase “being a man” does appear, disputes whether particular behaviors attributed to Thomas deserve first to be considered sexual harassment and second to be made the subject of public discussion twenty years later. However we feel about Cohen’s judgment on these questions, “men being caught sexually harassing employees” is an invention. The one man under discussion, Thomas, was not “caught” in the act: He has been subjected to unverifiable accusations. Regarding Polanski – not “men raping minors,” but one man accused and guilty by confession of rape in a notorious and exhaustively discussed case – Cohen supports a decision by Swiss authorities not to extradite Polanski on three-decade-old charges. Contrary to Kelly’s depiction, Cohen bases his argument on a detailed history of Polanski’s trial and flight, and he directly criticizes those who seek to excuse Polanski by referring to the film maker’s artistic accomplishments: “They thought of his films,” writes Cohen. “They should have thought of their own daughters.” Kelly also adds, via parentheses, a highly personalized observation: “Though in fairness, the harassment bit might have something to do with the fact that he’s been there and done that.” “Fairness” for Kelly apparently includes equating never adjudicated or settled, strongly denied accusations by a female intern against Cohen during the late ’90s, with acts taken to have been confirmed and to lie beyond dispute.

After an interlude – during which Kelly resumes efforts to re-write Cohen’s Iowa column along theoretically more acceptable lines – Kelly returns to false attribution of opinions. “[E]ven though [Cohen] claims America no longer has race issues when arguing for white rights on the affirmative action front, he’s pretty concerned about the inherent danger black men pose to a civilized society.” “Inherent danger black men pose to a civilized society” is purely Kelly’s own exaggerated language, of course, offered in place of any evidenced argument or any specific reference at all. The introductory clause refers to a 2009 Cohen column about the firefighter Frank Ricci’s having been denied promotion because his ethnicity failed to satisfy a fire department’s diversity goals – a matter then before the U.S. Supreme Court in “Ricci v. DeStefano.” In that column, Cohen argues that, since race-based employment discrimination is much less of a problem today than it was when Affirmative Action was born, it is no longer possible to justify the disadvantaging of individuals like Mr. Ricci. Cohen argues for an end to Affirmative Action, alongside a strengthening of anti-discrimination laws, but he makes no argument for “white rights.” To accept that his argument as actually stated can have no other implication would constitute a claim against any possible place for individual rights in the law. I doubt that Tod Kelly holds such a radical view.

Next in the brief comes Cohen’s column, published this July, on the case of George Zimmerman. I was the one to whom Kelly refers, in a footnoted “update,” when he describes someone accusing him of bad faith on this matter. To be clear, I did in fact use the words “bad faith” to describe Kelly’s general approach, and I stand by that description.2 To provide a Twitter-suitable example, I noted the difference between calling someone’s actions “heroic,” the statement attributed to Cohen by Kelly, and saying that someone acted “in quest of heroism,” the latter phrase consisting of the words Cohen actually used. Though one concept of authentic heroism might exclude any “quest for heroism,” a phrase that implies a selfish undertaking, under other concepts conduct “in quest of heroism” and conduct deemed truly “heroic” might be seen as possibly independent, but not mutually exclusive. Alternatively, even under the selfless concept, conduct in “quest of heroism” might still be seen as somewhat admirable, if not truly heroic, but the column begins with Cohen asserting his dislike for “what George Zimmerman did.” A few sentences later, Cohen also writes that “[w]hat Zimmerman did was wrong.” In other words, Cohen makes it quite clear that he does not consider Zimmerman’s conduct admirable at all, much less heroic. I had also mentioned to Kelly that his further description of Cohen’s portrayal of Zimmerman, in which Kelly puts the word “brave” in quotes, gives the same misleading impression as putting “heroic” in quotes. The words are Kelly’s, not Cohen’s.

By the end of the paragraph, Kelly leaves Zimmerman behind, and turns to a piece written nearly 30 years ago, in the Washington Post Magazine’s inaugural issue. The article does not seem to be readily accessible on-line, and I have not seen anyone re-produce it. Its theme appears to be questionable or potentially controversial, and was taken as such at the time, since Cohen seems to have mounted a defense of Washington DC jewelry store owners who denied service to young African American men during a supposed crime wave. Though I do not know what Cohen wrote, it seems safe to assume that he was addressing particular circumstances, not arguing in favor of racial discrimination in general (or, absurdly, just for  jewelry store owners, indefinitely). The article very likely followed an argument similar to the one Cohen offers on the Ricci case, also in keeping with expressions of “understanding” regarding Zimmerman’s “wrong” motivations or regarding the racist reflexes of supposed Tea Party social-conventionalists. In such pieces, Cohen plays a traditional role of teller of uncomfortable truths, the man unafraid to confess a thought-crime in favor of the individual or “real world” exception to the general rule.3

In a widely cited paragraph from a post entitled “Richard Cohen in Context,” Ta-Nehisi Coates duplicates Kelly’s logic and methods in a condensed format:

Context can not improve this. “Context” is not a safe word that makes all your other horse-shit statements disappear. And horse-shit is the context in which Richard Cohen has, for all these years, wallowed. It is horse-shit to claim that store owners are right to discriminate against black males. It is horse-shit to claim Trayvon Martin was wearing the uniform of criminals. It is horse-shit to subject your young female co-workers to “a hostile work environment.” It is horse-shit to expend precious newsprint lamenting the days when slovenly old dudes had their pick of 20-year-old women. It is horse-shit to defend a rapist on the run because you like The PianistAnd it is horse-shit for Katharine Weymouth, the Post‘s publisher, to praise a column with the kind of factual error that would embarrass a j-school student.

Some of Coates’s summaries refer to columns discussed above. The claim about store-owners refers to that apparently unavailable 1986 article: Coates links to a second article containing a cursory description. The second link refers to the Zimmerman column, in which, near the beginning, Cohen did not assert that Trayvon Martin “was” wearing a uniform, but rather that Zimmerman “thought” he was. Cohen’s phraseology does, however, remain questionable or somewhat ambiguous in relation to the notorious “hoodie” as part or principal part of a “uniform.” The third link refers to the disputed incident or set of incidents involving an intern in the late ’90s, the occasion for Kelly’s observation on fairness. The fourth link refers us to an article in which a writer seeks to ridicule Cohen’s musings in relation to male sex symbols. Coates’s summary uncritically adopts the other writer’s position, and exaggerates it in a way that might seem more distasteful if not overshadowed by Coates’s “horse-shit” anaphora. The fifth link is to the Polanski article, whose argument Coates gets backwards in the same way that Kelly does. As already observed, Cohen attacks any notion of an artist’s exemption to rape laws. Rather than excusing Polanski’s crime for the sake of The Pianist, the position falsely attributed to Cohen by Coates, or, as others have attempted, excusing Polanski by reference to his status as Holocaust survivor, or by reference to his status as survivor of a recently murdered spouse, or on any other basis, Cohen makes the following categorical statement (emphasis added): “The only argument in favor of Polanski’s continued freedom is that he is the victim of judicial misconduct.”

The sixth link finally returns us to the central argument against Cohen’s Republicans-in-Iowa column. On the specific claim against Katharine Weymouth, Coates interprets Cohen’s clumsy word choice as a simple and obvious, and therefore embarrassing error, but his own interpretation relies on faulty assumptions, among them that an analytical conclusion based on opinion polling (on “conventional” views on “interracial marriage”) can be taken as simply “factual.”

We are therefore left, as ever, to determine from context, because there is no other way to make sense of verbal expressions, what Cohen meant for his readers to understand. A man who believed all of the things that Kelly, Coates, and others seem to believe Cohen believes, or seem to want us to believe he believes, might conceivably also believe, or prefer to believe and prefer that others believe, that “suppress[-ing] a gag reflex” regarding a couple like the mayor-elect of New York City and his wife reflects a “conventional view” on “interracial marriage” in the sense of a view widely held and generally accepted and acceptable, a view reasonably considered normal not just for a segment of unreconstructed reactionaries, but for all of us. Of course, a reflex does not result from a “view”4, conventional or otherwise. It occurs automatically and irrepressibly, presumably on the basis of deep-seated habit, instinct, or simple physical necessity: Cohen’s original locution, interpreted strictly, was nonsensical. More to the point, however, Cohen has not been demonstrated to believe all, if any, of those things that Kelly, Coates, and others claim that he believes. There is no reason not to consider contradictory as well as more sensible expressions offered in the immediate context – referring, for example, to the “mainstreaming” of the views in question, just before the sentence that seems to describe their opposite as “conventional” – or Cohen’s own assertion, in response to critics, that he was referring to views among the faction of Iowa Republicans upon whom he was focusing.5

A serious discussion on the main underlying question – on the roles and uses of the concept of “race” in American politics and culture – might be worth having, but not according to the the kind of license to mislead, to testify for immediate effect rather than for accuracy, that Kelly, Coates, and their peers grant to themselves and in effect to each other. If a discussion under such terms somehow qualified as serious, it would likely be so in only the worst ways.

Notes:

  1. See, for example, the Huffington Post editors and Change.org petitioners demanding that the Post fire Cohen. []
  2. Rather than amend his piece or pursue the criticism consequentially, Kelly responded defensively, in part by publishing his misleading update. []
  3. Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall derides Cohen’s tendencies as “Chronic Racial Grandpa-ism,” but the form of the argument is much older than Grandpa: It is precisely as old as justice, just as  condemnations of it have also resounded with the same righteous fervency precisely since the dawn of history. The origin of politics is the origin of prohibited sympathies. For us, today, sympathizing with racially discriminatory shopkeepers or Tea Party racists, or sympathizing at secondhand with others who offer such sympathies, will be to invite censure. To condemn such sympathies and those who hold them will be to invite praise. []
  4. as notion or opinion []
  5. “I didn’t write one line, I wrote a column,” Cohen said. “The column is about Tea Party extremism and I was not expressing my views, I was expressing the views of what I think some people in the Tea Party held.”

    []


WordPresser
Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.

24 comments on “Tod Kelly, Ta-Nehisi Coates, et al. vs. Richard Cohen

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. ‘Fascinating’ as Spock would say, cohen’s vain attempt to grasp a thought’ has backfired spectacularly, although in ways that make one blanch,

  2. The column was very stupid, they somehow ‘dialed to eleven’ in response, I thought they would all nod in Landru style, instead they decided he was not ‘of the body’

  3. Aside from the needlessly ambiguous phrasings and a poor word choice in the 3rd-to-last paragraph, magnified by the sensitivity of the subject matter, the article overall strikes me as a serviceable piece of journalistic cultural-political analysis. In most if not all of Cohen’s most attention-grabbing articles, a small amount of editing – not the thorough re-writing that Kelly attempts – would make his work much more difficult to attack, though no writer nor anyone else who presumes to address matters of broad public interest can remain completely immune from a determinedly hostile reading, or re-writing, pitched to the weaknesses of a crowd always ready for a new scapegoat or ritual sacrifice. If Cohen or a helpful editor had substituted “once widely held attitudes” for “conventional views,” or had emphasized that he meant views common among the faction of Iowa Republicans he was discussing, I think the piece would have gotten the Landru nod, and Cohen’s critics would have had to find someone else to defame this week on Twitter, on the blogs, and on MSNBC and Comedy Central. To go much further forward, you’d have to go much further backward, starting all over again on the level of phenomenology, examining why a defunct or supposedly defunct concept, “race,” can operate within and continue to shape the worldviews and experiences of so many on both sides of our main political divides.

  4. Well it struck me as very amusing, not the column itself which was typical of the reductionism that the Tea Party has been subjected too, that might have prompted a stronger reaction,

  5. Furthermore, DeBlasio’s sympathies for Fidel and Mugabe, his almost pathological dimness re law enforcement, his blinkered sense of budgeting, are much more important issues.

  6. I obviously don’t find the subject of the post merely amusing. I suppose we’ll just have to see whether any of what you say about DeBlasio comes to matter much or at all to anyone, though there is a subterranean connection, since the conservative’s dystopia, of the unshakably self-righteous liberal-leftist in unchecked authority, is visible in the collective defamation of the center-right deviant.

  7. Well the one saving grace of Bloomberg, was his maintenance of the blue line, I don’t know if we’ll need to summon Snake Plissken just yet, or it will revert merely to the latter days of Koch, and early Dinkins, that gave B movie cinema, such a rich panorama.

    • Thought you might like to know that you’re famous now, or again, or possibly famous again, or that your screen-name is, since I posted one of our exchanges above to sulia.com, and it got promoted to the home page: http://t.co/h5LAWn6ilH I do not know what that means, but I don’t think it’s bad. I’m pretty confident it must have been the Star Trek TOS reference that sealed the deal.

  8. Well it is the universal language, I guess the squirrel move is one doesn’t actually deal with the argument that he made, which ignores the real arguments one has with the administration,

    • Indeed it was, Mr. Frog, but I find it difficult to forgive the ideologically driven but also self-serving dishonesty and incompetence of Cohen’s critics. A similar thing happened in relation to the Derbyshire piece that Don Miguel and I briefly discussed on the Wall, though Derbyshire and Cohen are very different writers. What makes “race” such an interesting zombie.

  9. Well no, it’s ThinkRegress it was intentional, Derbyshire was always Spenglerian, but he’s gone fully Von Sydow,

    • I have a hard time believing that Alyssa Rosenberg – or Tod Kelly or Ta-Nehisi Coates or any of the rest of them – sits down and says to her- or himself, “Let’s see how much lying about the enemy we can get away with.” In some ways, that would be more respectable, since it would imply a higher level of self-awareness or political professionalism. I think they actually think that what they write is true to life, and that by the time Rosenberg is done with her review of Derbyshire’s article, she really believes that he wrote a “review” or a “critique” of 12 YEARS A SLAVE. If you told her that her terms were inaccurate, she would likely concede the fact and call it trivial compared to the moral necessity of publicly upbraiding a racist, and sooner or later imply that no one who didn’t share Derbyshire’s moral defects would even bother to point out her errors. I think Kelly and Coates likewise really believed, by the time they were writing, that Cohen sought to extenuate Polanski’s crime through his movies, and really believed that viewing the DeBlasio family ought to make a normal person vomit. Such attitudes would fit the monstrous type they imagine themselves combating. (In other words, they’re “profiling.”) They don’t think that monsters deserve fairness, and that there’s any shame in imperfectly going to war against them. If you finally persuaded them that Cohen wasn’t really so bad, and that they had erred in their attacks on him, or that Derbyshire had not committed whatever particular crimes, they’d still feel proud to have fought the good fight against the monstrous things that Cohen’s imperfections, or Derbyshire’s stated intentions (to discriminate by reference to race, also to upset the liberal left), represent to them.

    • An interesting variation on the theme, but Coates himself calls his own work “rambling,” and I wouldn’t presume to un-ramble it: As written, it’s not coherent enough or well enough organized or systematic enough to sustain serious discussion – except as (another) object lesson in how to give the impression of discussing something without actually doing so – but I don’t think serious discussion is what Coates seeks or what his readers want or expect from him either.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Related

Noted & Quoted

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →

So, does Mitchell make any money on the work, which has been shared so many times? He uploaded a high-res image of the symbol and granted permission for anyone to use it personally for free. But for those who want to support his work or simply want something readymade, you can also buy T-shirts, sweatshirts, mugs, and journals emblazoned with the symbol through Threadless.“I really just want to spread the image as much as possible and cement it in history,” Mitchell says. “In all honesty, the amount I’ve made from my Threadless shop so far is still less than my hourly rate, so I don’t really see it as a big deal. If you look at my Twitter, half the replies are people wanting to know where they can buy a shirt. Threadless is happy to help them out with that, and so I’m happy to let that happen.”Now that the symbol has flooded our streets and our timelines, Mitchell just has one request: “Impeach this idiot already,” he says.

Comment →

This is a Waterloo moment for Trump, the tea party and their alliance. They have been stopped in their tracks not only by Democratic opposition but because of a mutiny within their own ranks. Although never particularly liked or respected, it is now clear that they are no longer feared. The bankruptcy of their ideas and their incompetence have been exposed. Their momentum has been dissipated. Their rejection of political norms has itself been scorned. Our long national nightmare may finally be coming to an end.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins

Categories

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins