That’s the eye-catching headline of an item posted on a widely-read politics site this morning. What is the author talking about? He’s talking about the story about now-suspended “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson’s racist and anti-gay tirade:
there’s one America where comparing homosexuality to bestiality is considered acceptable, and another where it is rude and offensive….
There’s one America where it’s OK to say this about black people in the Jim Crow-era South: “Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.” There’s another America where that statement is considered to reflect ignorance and insensitivity.
In one America, it’s OK to attribute the Pearl Harbor attacks to Shinto Buddhists’ failure to accept Jesus. In the other America, that is not OK.
And the punchline (emphasis mine):
There are two Americas, one of which is better than the other. And it’s instructive who’s sticking up for the worse America….
When Sarah Palin and her cohorts [such as Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, and Sean Hannity] talk about the importance of “free speech,” they mean something much more specific: That the sorts of things that Robertson said are not the sorts of things a private employer should want to fire someone for saying. That they are, or ought to be, within the bounds of social acceptability.
But they’re wrong. The other America — the America I live in — has this one right. Racist and anti-gay comments and comments disparaging of religious minorities are rude and unacceptable and might cost you your job. It’s not OK to say that gay people are “full of murder.”
Wow. It’s not unusual for someone to criticize specific comments that someone else has made. But it is unusual for someone to declare that an entire American subculture is, essentially, inferior to another. I mean, saying that one America “is better than the other” – why, that might even be thought of as elitist! Shocking.
And this same commentator just today was pretty clear in explaining that Republicans actually don’t want poor people to have health insurance.
Republicans get angry when I say Republicans want the poor to not have health insurance. But it’s true!
It is literally the policy agenda of the Republican party to maximize the number of poor people without health insurance.
Which party has invested massive effort in getting states to decline the federally-funded Medicaid expansion? It’s the Republicans!
Again, wow. Rudely telling it like it is.
What’s perhaps most remarkable about all this is that our truth-teller is not Rachel Maddow or some other bleeding heart lefty on MSNBC. No, the author of all this commentary is Josh Barro, the politics editor at Business Insider, and himself a Republican. There are actually some old-school conservatives out there who truly hate the direction their party is going, and are getting very blunt about how wrong-headed its leaders are.
Here’s hoping the voices like Barro’s get louder and louder.