A pundit makes a nasty remark on the spur of the moment. He is ashamed of himself and apologizes to the target of the insult, who graciously accepts.
Props to Cal Thomas for coming clean, and to Rachel Maddow for being big enough to accept the apology.
But it’s sad that basic civility has become breaking news in our political discourse these days.
h/t James Joyner
Yes, this is to Thomas’s credit.
But it seems to me that the telling aspect of the story is one he doesn’t mention: the CPAC crowd loved it. No one in a “pro-life” crowd protested at Thomas’s expressed wish that Rachel Maddow and all her colleagues had never been born. None of his fellow-conservatives called him out on it in print or the electronic equivalent.
Thomas suggests that his lapse from good taste and good manners was due to demonic possession. I think he’s joking. But, though the epidemiology of possession is poorly understood, it’s thought to be contagious. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Here’s the clip if you want to see the original remark, and the positive reaction from the crowd and the other people on the panel:
Thomas’s column is eloquently unqualified in its expression of regret. The headline uses the term, “civility”, and attaches a first-person possessive pronoun, but Thomas, in his text, does not; though he refers to “name-calling” in the abstract, it is the hypocrisy of a pro-lifer wishing someone unborn, to which he calls specific attention.
Civility is a weak reed, at best, in a democracy, and, like honor, too often a mask for a society, which has given up democracy for something else.
Eh, I’m not impressed. Not with the insult, not with the apology.
Well of course it didn’t matter, unless it was Maddow who insulted him. Why even bring it up? It would have been a bit more relevant if he’d said: “It didn’t matter that Maddow is routinely subject to worse insults.” But his point here is that he’s better than those insulting liberals.
Bruce is right that civility, in this context, is a mask. Preferring that someone hadn’t been born is pretty weak, as far as insults go. Thomas chose to highlight that insult and the apology because it hides his routine barbarism.
I disagree. I think he’s referring to the normal partisan tactic of excusing every horrible thing that your own side did with the claim (often false, but sometimes true) that the other side is worse.
He’s saying it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if someone has compared Cal Thomas to Hitler or said that he drinks the blood of Jewish babies or said that he’s worse than Jeffrey Dahmer. It doesn’t matter what anyone on the left says about me, it is wrong for me to say what I said about someone on the left.
Because if he doesn’t say this, that would inevitably be the reaction of many conservative partisans.
I think he is just hoping to get one of those “Crossfire” type shows with Rachel. Hope it doesn’t happen – he is not in her league.
An old dog raising its leg to piss on the pansies one more time and hoping to set the wasps a-buzzing…
If it seems to happen more today than ten years hence, I suggest we turn to David Frum (When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality?) for an explanation:
Frum nailed it.
Bumper sticker version: Yesterday’s conservatism was made for governing; today’s conservatism is made for television.
I just love the casual way in which he mentioned that he might have been possessed by a demon when he made the offending comment.
That was, I believe, what is technically called a “joke.”
Thomas seemed to be more concerned about his own image than he did about any hurt he might have caused. Maddow was gracious to accept his apology, regardless.
Being concerned with your own image is not inconsistent with being contrite.
If you say something you shouldn’t say in a public form, (1) you SHOULD be concerned about your image, especially if you are a public figure, and (2) you should be contrite.
Compare Thomas to someone like Ann Coulter, who never seems to be either.