The first thing I turn to after I bring in my copy of The Bulletin every morning is the editorial page. I never know what kind of inspired idiocy I’ll get to read as I eat my Cheerios.
This morning there was a particularly outstanding specimen – an “In My View” piece by one Alfred Ferguson titled “Oligarchic collectivists, the Ivy League and liberals gone wild.”
I know nothing about Alfred Ferguson except that he lives in Bend (I know that from the curt line at the end of the piece, which is usually the only information The Bulletin deigns to provide about “In My View” contributors) and that he dislikes Barack Obama. Man, he really, really, REALLY dislikes Barack Obama.
Ferguson begins by informing us that “oligarchic collectivism” is a phrase “that we Americans are slated to become very familiar with as Obama and his wrecking crew have their socialist/Marxist way with us.”
From that point, it gets wacky. Ferguson goes on to describe how “Obama and his wrecking crew” knew they could never “dump this load of collectivist nonsense onto freedom-loving, common-sensical American people all at once without risking outright armed rebellion by citizen/patriots,” so they’re doing it in sneaky piecemeal fashion “by legislative manipulations, payoffs, backroom canoodling of one sort or another.”
Ferguson doesn’t go into specific examples, but presumably the very modest health care reform legislation passed on Sunday qualifies.
Then comes a strange paragraph that appears to hint that Obama is some sort of Manchurian Candidate:
“Obama himself attended Occidental College for two years, then transferred to Columbia, from there to Harvard Law. All of these places are expensive. His parents were not affluent, so how was it all financed? You didn’t see Obama scurrying about at minimum wage jobs as most financially average-to-poor American men and women must to get a college education. Scholarships if any are never complete. So what agent picked up the tab? Whoever or whatever it was, Obama the student got a solid, if not fanatical, grounding in oligarchic collectivism.”
From there Ferguson segues into a shot at Van Jones, an environmental advisor to the Obama administration who stepped down last September after controversy over his past associations with leftist groups, which in turn segues into a sneer at uppity Ivy Leaguers in general: “So Mr. Jones was unleashed into the night — to wind up as a lecturer at Princeton, where the rich go to be rich together. Ah, yes, the Ivy League of privileged gentlemen and ladies.”
Class envy much?
It might interest Ferguson to know that according to Director of Financial Aid Robin Moscato, 54% of this year’s freshman class at Princeton is receiving financial aid. Then again, it might not interest him; why let an inconvenient fact get in the way of a perfectly good opinion?
Anyway, Ferguson goes on to expend some of his limitless supply of outrage on Yale for holding something called “Sex Week,” which he appears to think is some kind of massive orgiastic ‘60s-style love-in, and then produces the following curious conclusion:
“Any authoritative or authoritarian unleashing of the libido invariably accompanies the imposition of tyranny, the elimination of privacy in all respects, the enslavement of the self for some purpose determined by the oligarchy, and, finally, the death of the individual soul — in the context of abandoning common sense.”
Historically, totalitarian regimes of the left or right have tended to be sexually repressive – and it’s rather difficult to figure out how the “unleashing of the libido” would square with “the elimination of privacy in all respects.” (Remember how much trouble Winston Smith and his girlfriend had finding a place where they could carry on without being under Big Brother’s eye in “1984”?) But, whatever.
Ferguson’s rant is comical, but there’s nothing funny about the behavior that can be inspired by this kind of over-the-top rhetoric. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that the number of extremist groups in the country “exploded” in 2009 “as militias and other groups steeped in wild, antigovernment conspiracy theories exploited populist anger across the country and infiltrated the mainstream.”
Of particular concern was a 244% increase in the number of “Patriot” groups “fueled by anger over the changing demographics of the country, the soaring public debt, the troubled economy and an array of initiatives by President Obama that have been branded ‘socialist’ or even ‘fascist’ by his political opponents.” The “Patriot” militia movement of the 1990s led to the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people.
When a supposedly respectable newspaper like The Bulletin gives space on its editorial page to imbecilic ravings like Ferguson’s, it gives them an aura of legitimacy and credibility they don’t deserve – and it abdicates its responsibility to its readers and the community.
And this was not the first time Mr. Ferguson’s babblings have graced The Bulletin’s opinion columns; a search of the archives revealed that he’s had at least four other pieces published in less than a year. The titles: “Reality has never been friendly to the dreams of liberals,” “After the Obama wrecking crew,” “When hubris is your leader, disaster surely will follow” (believe it or not, that was NOT talking about the George W. Bush administration) and “Modern art piece is an insult to the White House.”
Please don’t tell me this is a “free speech” issue. Yes, the Alfred Fergusons of the world have a constitutional right to hold and voice whatever loopy opinions they want – but that doesn’t mean a newspaper is obliged to give them a platform and a bullhorn.
I put in a call to Erik Lukens, The Bulletin’s editor of editorials (and, incidentally, one of those privileged Ivy Leaguers) to try to find out why the paper is so enamored of the prose of Alfred Ferguson. Lukens hasn’t returned my call, so I may never know the answer. Maybe it’s because, contrasted with Ferguson’s tirades, The Bulletin’s editorials sound like the voice of sweet reason.
This article appears in Mar 25-31, 2010.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
HB
If this were an isolated incident on the Bulletin Oped page, it could be laughed off. Like you, I start the morning reading the local Editorial section. This is a frequent happenstance. I hope it is because of some misguided sense of first amendment correctness that compels them to provide a platform to the crackpots. It is probably, however, a marketing ploy–red meat for its base reader. All sorts of conspiracies have been alluded to and described over the last few months. I liken it to the Truther letters that find their way onto the pages of the Source Oped. Often outright laughable, they still have their adherents and advocates.
I don’t think commenting on it was worth you time.
“Maybe it's because, contrasted with Ferguson's tirades, The Bulletin's editorials sound like the voice of sweet reason.”
I wonder if, rather than the Bulletin, that this is actually the explanation of why The Source Weekly chooses to publish your pejorative laced screeds. You know what I mean, “See we aren’t so bad, the world is populated with all manner of ignoramuses. A prime example is right here at The Wandering Eye”.
Looks like another “The commies are coming” nitwit like the teabaggers. But, the screed fits with the current bunch running the Bulletin. No surprises here.
If I follow your logic, The Bulletin is endangering people by printing a guest column that you consider wacky? That’s funny. For a newspaper person, you apparently don’t think much of the First Amendment.
Also, doesn’t The Source regularly run letters by people who believe 9/11 was an inside job? Your criticism of The Bulletin’s standards doesn’t come from a position of strength.
You think I’m exaggerating the danger of violence from right-wing nut cases? This was just posted by ABC News:
“At least 10 House Democrats who voted Sunday for health care overhaul have received violent threats to their lives or property, party leaders said today.
“Several members have faced death threats and harassing phone calls while others have experienced vandalism at district offices or their private homes.
“In one case, a gas line was cut outside the Virginia home of Rep. Tom Perriello’s brother after a conservative activist posted the address online, mistakenly thinking it was the congressman’s house. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating.
“All threats and incidents directed against Members of Congress are taken seriously and are being investigated … to identify and bring to justice those responsible,” said FBI spokesman Paul Bresson.”
If wingnuts become persuaded that an evil alien force has taken over their country and is trying to destroy it, some of them are going to conclude they’re justified in resisting with violence. As Rush Limbaugh used to say, words have consequences.
Sadly, Ferguson’s blitherings are quite uninspired by current standards. There’s a vast sea of crazy out there. The loosely-tethered have all quite slipped their moorings and have drifted out of the safe harbor of reason; possessing neither charts nor the rudiments of navigation, and in some cases lacking helmsmen entirely, they are running before the shifting, erratic winds of whatever nutty notions blow their way.
I’d normally recommend ignoring them, as the gibbering crazies are always with us, but many of these tinfoil hatters are so frightened that they’re packing heat. And, sadly, some of them will use it.
“(I know that from the curt line at the end of the piece, which is usually the only information The Bulletin deigns to provide about “In My View” contributors)”
Huh. Doesn’t the Source regularly run anonymous letters to the editor?
“For a newspaper person, you apparently don’t think much of the First Amendment.”
Obviously The Bulletin has a First Amendment RIGHT to print whatever it chooses; I’m questioning whether it’s doing the responsible thing by providing a platform for inflammatory rhetoric. Not only does it publish Ferguson’s drool, but it gives him a prominent place at the bottom of the editorial page and bylines him as a “guest columnist,” which further enhances his credibility.
I’m not aware of any other mainstream paper, including the Wall Street Journal, that publishes crap like this.
For the record I don’t like the 9/11 Truther letters either — but at least the Source doesn’t call the authors “guest columnists.”
The right wing pundits are trying to spin this bad behavior as a Democratic sponsored effort to inspire support. They deny the astroturfing of the Tea Party movement in spite of the Republican PAC money backing it. They claim the Parkinson victim abused in Ohio is an actor. They refer to the death threats and vandalism as alleged and unproven. Any evidence to the contrary is ‘faked’.
One of the mottoes of the Tea Party I see flashed on signs is ‘Take the country back.’ I agree–it’s time to take it back from the nut jobs on the left and right who only care about power–getting it and maintaining it. They are willing to say and do anything towards that end. The Repubs who decried the use of parliamentary maneuvers to pass the health bill are now using the same tactics to thwart or delay it in the senate and are holding up hearings in retribution. Maybe they should just take their ball and go home.
Rest assured that if the power shifts to the GOP, the Dems will do the same. There is no loyal opposition any longer, only opposition. Elected officials sacrifice good governance at the alter good politics. Even the David Frum over at the American Enterprise Institute thought the GOP strategy re health care legislation was an error. Rather than influence policy, Frum stated, the GOP had sacrificed its tempering influence in hopes of gaining the seats to return to power in the fall. There is a concern that the strategy will backfire. Firstly, Frum believes that there is no hope of repealing the bill and any chance the GOP had of influencing the bill substantially has been lost. Secondly, when the dire predictions of the GOP’s overheated rhetoric fail to materialize, the people who were influenced by that rhetoric will then doubt current claims by the GOP as well. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/us/politics/23repubs.html
The acrid nature of the political climate–the toxic nature of the dialogue has been doubly enable by the internet, where people such as Alfred Ferguson can always find reinforcement for their ideas and claims, and in turn become a reinforcer for the like minded. The internet enables a little lie to become a big one, and that Big Lie to become the Truth. There is no absolute right of free speech. The are legal statutes concerning slander and incitement. It will continue to evolve as the Constitution is forced to face realities inconceivable when it was written. The laws of the land were written to change with the times and does so. Good thing, too.
After subscribing to the Bulletin for over 20 years I could take it no longer and recently canceled my subscription. The snarky editorial section is simply a daily regurgitation of GOP dogma. The news stories are shallow and replete with yet more GOP dogma. What happened to providing the community with informative reporting? The only thing I will miss about the Bulletin is the election recommendations, how will I know who to vote against now?