I did not want to, but a friend pushed me into it. I am writing another response to Matt Walsh from the mattwalshblog.com. Today I am responding to this piece. I’ll just go straight to the parts that got my attention. If you feel I missed some bigger point feel free to let me know in the comments. To start, I did not find the Breitbart piece to be all that even-keeled as Matt assures us it is. It alleges that the ad is the Coke company’s announcement that the US is no longer ruled by the constitution or liberty. This feels like a lot of hyperbole to me. Not only is it expressing disapproval of non-english speakers but gays too. It also describes the conservative reaction in terms similar to the ones Matt criticizes liberals for using. I think lighting up the internet is comparable to a firestorm.
Then we have Allan West claiming, the commercial is a sign we are on the “road to perdition” AKA our culture is literally going to hell because of this. Which itself is stupid, insane and deserving of nearly all that was said about it. Enough said.
Then you have the fox news commentator saying that “coke is the official drink of illegals crossing the border”. Which, I figure can only mean that he figures non-english speaking people must all be here illegally, or that everyone in the commercial must be in the US or that he believes coke is making a statement on US immigration policy. It sounds incredibly racist, xenophobic and reactionary. This is not to mention how incredibly dehumanizing it is to call people “illegals”. It is in fact comments like these that are the reason the Republican party is losing the support of anyone but old white men, and will continue to have difficulties in this area for years to come. It is essentially saying if your are not a white American we don’t want you.
Additionally, Walsh neglects to mentions the statements by Laura Ingraham, which also mentioned “illegals” as well as Glenn Beck ranting that the ad was solely created to divide people. All the above mentioned statements were stupid and put the conservative movement in a bad light, and very much deserved the condemnation they got.
Does this amount to a “backlash” or a “firestorm”? I don’t know it, these strike me as subjective labels, and the whole thing strikes me as a largely a semantic argument. I do know, that we have at least five prominent conservative voices plus a handful of like minded followers all saying things that are completely worthy of condemnation and provide an excellent example of a real problem the conservative movement is facing. Conservatives are alienating people by calling them illegals, and having prominent members of their movement freaking out over anything that is slightly multicultural. It is part of the reason Obama got elected twice (for better or worse) and republicans keep doing it to themselves. I have yet to see Walsh condemn any of this.
Also the things that were said about Miss New York a while back were incredibly ignorant and offensive and worthy of commentary, even if Walsh and most other Americans did not care the pageant was going on. Needless to say, I am glad both stories were reported to me. I don’t think stories such as this killed journalism. Journalism died when all the major media outlets got bought out by the same handful of companies that had bought out most of the competition. I for on don’t believe real journalism really truly died though, it just left the mainstream. This actually strikes me as bit of selected outrage on Walsh’s part. How often is he likely to play the “this is not journalism” card, for stories that put liberals in a bad light? In this case we have a story with five high-profile conservatives saying dreadful things, and Walsh is saying, look away, this is not real journalism.