The far-right blaming 'DEI' for Baltimore bridge collapse is part of its malicious pattern
There is a school of thought among liberals that believes an educated citizenry is the best defense against despotism. While I don’t have any reason to doubt that, I do think we overstate what we mean by “educated.” It can mean knowing a few things, but it can also mean having a certain set of value... The far-right wing's reaction to the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, is part of a pattern of blaming "Diversity, equity and inclusion programming" (DEI) for the tragedy, which occurred after a ship carrying scores of thousands of tons lost power and killed six people. The rightwing fringe is obsessed with DEI, which is a good-faith effort to make society fairer, but they see this as theft. The idea of "DEI" is often followed by the tendency of rightwingers to blame marginalized people for bad things, such as hurricanes and natural disasters. These groups often ignore fairness as fairness and ignore the fact that efforts to improve society's engineering standards lead to bad things happening. The author suggests that while liberals should focus on fact-checking, they should act morally, as opposed to the fact-checkers like Glenn Kessler who regularly debunk stories about the far-left's claims.
Veröffentlicht : vor 4 Wochen durch John Stoehr in Politics
There is a school of thought among liberals that believes an educated citizenry is the best defense against despotism. While I don’t have any reason to doubt that, I do think we overstate what we mean by “educated.” It can mean knowing a few things, but it can also mean having a certain set of values, the ability to recognize patterns and the courage to do something about them. We don’t need to fact-check everything. Indeed, we shouldn’t. What we need to do is act morally.
This is what I was thinking about as I was reading about the rightwing reaction to the collapse of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge. A vessel that’s scores of thousands of tons in weight lost power before slamming into a support column, sending parts of the bridge into the bay in a matter of seconds and at least six people (so far) to their deaths. It was a dramatic accident, and a rare one. Literally thousands of similar ships go in and out of America’s ports every year, and this is, if I’m not mistaken, the first one to knock down a bridge in my lifetime.
Whenever something like this happens, you can bet – literally, you will win; it’s so predictable – that someone on the furthest fringes of the right will blame it on marginalized people they dislike. If you don’t like gay people, as the late conservative televangelist Pat Robertson did not, then they are to blame for hurricanes and other natural disasters. The solution, according to Roberts (though he never spelled it out explicitly), was for gay people to just go away. Once gone, God would love America again. (Hurricanes will presumably go away, too.)
The lyrics are different, but the song is the same. These days, the rightwing fringe is obsessed with something called DEI (or diversity, equity and inclusion programming). You don’t need to know much about DEI except that it’s a good-faith effort to make society fairer. Anyone with a sense of decency wouldn’t blink of an eye at that, but rightwingers don’t see fairness as fairness. They see it as theft. So whenever bad things happen, they are quick to blame Black people.
That’s what happened. By Tuesday morning, rightwingers, including Republican lawmakers, were blaming the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge on DEI programming, which is to say, on Black people.
The thinking (if you can call it thinking) is that efforts to make society fairer lower standards, in this case (as far as I can tell) engineering standards, such that bad things will happen. The solution for these rightwingers is the same as for Robertson. If gay people went away, no more hurricanes. If Black people go away, no more bridges will collapse.
I’m being facetious, but only slightly, and I’m being only slightly facetious for a reason. Two reasons, actually. One, there’s no point in respecting people who care less about bad things happening (and what to do about them) than the fact that they justify, to them, why they dislike marginalized people. While the rest of us saw the collapse and felt compassion, they saw it and felt a surge of free-floating hate.
The other point? There’s no point in respecting what they say, either. We have a bad habit of getting into a trap with these people. They lie about something, anything – eg, DEI is why the bridge collapsed – and we defend that thing, as if that’s going to stop them. They don’t care about what they say, not enough to avoid sounding stupid, so why should the rest of us care more than they do about what they say?
We saw this pattern a lot during Trump’s presidency in publications that dedicated resources to fact-checking him. He not only lied. He lied maliciously, wearing out good-faith reporters like the Post’s Glenn Kessler, who chased down, verified or debunked every claim he made. It made no difference. He kept on lying in the name of the people, such that fact-checkers like Glenn Kessler became the people’s enemy.
Kessler is limited to fact-checking but the rest of us are not. Indeed, we don’t even need to know what DEI is, except that it's a good-faith effort to make society fairer. All we need to know is how to recognize a malicious pattern – they already hate marginalized people and will exploit accidents, natural disasters, practically any bad thing that has ever happened to justify hating them and disseminating that hate.
Don’t get me wrong. DEI, and any good-faith effort to make society fairer, is worth defending. But let’s not confuse defense with offense. Let’s not confuse setting the record straight with political victory.
Themen: Traffic