Friday, February 15, 2008

Could we not use the term "civil war"?

Especially given that an African-American candidate is involved, it doesn't sit well with me when people say that if the superdelegates for the Democratic Party turn the election away from the popular choice and toward the other candidate--presumably Clinton--it will cause a "civil war" in the Party and at the convention.

Such carelessness does two things:

1. It plays into the hands of Republicans by invoking a term that has a very particular history that hinges on race. The Republicans would love that.

2. It cheapens the phrase generally. Ask somebody in Lebanon or Yugoslavia about civil war. They ought to be horrified that we would compare a pansy tea party like a political convention in the U.S. to what they've been through.

3. I don't know why I use the subject "we" in the title. I'm not even a registered Democrat.

1 comment:

jeffrey said...

We don't need your civil war
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor


[/Axl]