Recent comments
- CHE on Boys
17 hours 47 min ago - an unscientific survey
1 day 18 hours ago - Good Morning
2 days 19 hours ago - Filing Cabinets
2 days 19 hours ago - other answers
2 days 20 hours ago - Evernote
2 days 21 hours ago - Research Techniques
2 days 23 hours ago - PR
5 days 19 hours ago - I agree . . .
5 days 19 hours ago - The Powers That Be
6 days 22 hours ago
Tags
blogging
campaign rhetoric 2008
legal rhetoric
political rhetoric
politics
rhetoric
rhetoric of economics
rhetoric of religion
technology
theorizing
the profession
wankery
Blogroll
- A Collage of Citations
- Amateur Humanist
- Blogging Pedagogy
- Blogologie
- Blogos
- Clinamen
- Collin Vs. Blog
- Complex Rhetoric
- Crooked Timber
- CultureCat
- Dangerous and Loud
- Digital B
- Earth Wide Moth
- Edu*Rhetor
- First Efforts
- Foolscap
- Founder-Chic
- Kairos News
- Mere Rhetoric
- New Pathos
- No Caption Needed
- Oratorical Animal
- Our Undemocratic Constitution
- PCARE
- Political Cotton Candy
- Public Reason: A Blog for Political Philosophers
- Red Rhetoric
- Rhetorica
- Rhetorical Imprints
- Slashdot
- Spinuzzi
- The Agon
- The Chronicle: Wired Campus
- The Philosophist
- The Pinocchio Theory
- The Rosewater Chronicles
- The Senses of Rhetoric
- The Valve
- Theoryville
- UGA Rendition
- Viz.
- Work/Space
- Working Blue
- Yellow Dog
Links
Search

The Blogora is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
I see your point, and I would love for a public discussion about race. A discussion that didn't devolve into a screaming match. But given the fact that opponents of Obama feel completely comfortable saying things like "I'm scared. I want MY America back." (i.e. I want "white" America back.) And given that any claim that such statements are racist are met with cries of "Oh, so any critique of the president is racist?" And given that currently we have no viable way of having a "conversation" about race in this country, all...
Well, given all of these things (and more), I do think it was a step in the right direction. It was not perfect. It may have served to smooth over the actual nastiness of the debate. It may have swept it under the carpet. But it also may have suggested to a few people out there that a conversation is possible. It's a baby step, but it's a baby step that is necessary. We can't have the public conversation until we agree to actually converse.
Maybe meeting for a beer was a way to model discussion. There aren't very many of these models these days. Instead, we (rhetoricians included) spend our time talking about Joe Wilson instead of health care. We deal with censures instead of issues.
Like I said, I'm with you...to an extent. I would have preferred a public conversation. But where exactly would such a conversation happen? And how might we imagine such a conversation (at the present cultural/historical moment) not turning into an opportunity for Sean Hannity to call his supporters "great Americans" and Keith Olberman to call Hannity an idiot...and on and on and on.
The "beer summit" was a little bit more than just annoying. It took a subject--racial profiling-- that should have been a matter of public discussion and located it quite clearly as a "private matter." That the private matter was put on something of a public display for all to see at a distance (but not to hear!) doesn't mitigate how the issue got framed or the "teachable moment" that was taught. So I'm not so sure that it was a step in the right direction.
Maybe they could have a beer together?
But given the fact that many people think Joe Wilson is a hero speaking truth to power (no surprise there), it seems unlikely that he'd be willing to use this opportunity for a photo-op/reconciliation. He'll probably be able to use it to as a fundraising opportunity (how depressing).
The "beer together" episode, while a bit annoying, was at least a step in the right direction.