Just finished “Bowling for Columbine” (finally). As is my wont, I avoided any reviews until I had actually seen the piece and formed my own opinion about it. I then went online to read a few reviews and got more or less what I expected… A lot of people who worship Moore and a lot of people who feel that he is the antichrist second coming of Lenin, full of commie lies and America-hate.
But what really got me writing here is that in reading this latter group of reviews I again saw many instances of a kind of sideways reference to America’s urban areas that paints them as some kind of lunatic fringe. The statements go something like: ‘The only way you’ll buy this liberal garbage is if you live in San Francisco. Only people in Hollywood and South Central Los Angeles like this bleeding heart crap. Only America’s urban populations, which are clearly biased toward the left and elected the likes of Hilary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi will believe these kinds of hate-America-first facts.’
My rhetorical question is this: why do so many people (including many in the media) often use minimizing qualifiers like “only those people in places like …” when discussing San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York or other urban areas in the context of left-wing politics?
Only? Do any of these rhetorical wizards or the people who listen to them ever stop to think that these “looney left” urban areas actually represent fully fifty percent of the American population? I get tired of people treating the entirety of San Francisco or New York City as though they were tiny specs of fringe liberalism in an ocean of proper “American” evangelical conservatism.
Oh well. Let California fall into the ocean because who needs those damn commies anyway, and in the meantime, Don’t Mess With Texas, right?