October 7, 2006 3:27 PM
Building future Democrats - Take 2
Kathy, I do wish it were a joke, but to prove it's not, the author of Why Mommy Is a Democrat has weighed in:
Every now and then I like to see what's being written about my book. I won't bother arguing with all of you (you've obviously made up your minds), but I do have to point out the hypocrisy of calling my book "propaganda" while promoting books like The Rainbow Fish, The Little Red Hen, The Little Engine That Could, and Read Aloud Bible Stories.
I replied:
All writers have agendas. Teaching kids character values or faith is different than indoctrinating them into a political party. I wouldn't read my kid Why Mommy is a Republican either. And you will note one commenter who found the book creepy was a Democrat :)
Mr. Zilber replied:
If a parent values a political party, then teaching children about that party is teaching values. It's no different than teaching children the virtues of libertarianism or a specific religious doctrine. In all of these cases, parents are teaching their children about something they value and believe in.You see my book as "propaganda" (rather than "teaching") simply because you don't happen to agree with the message. Many people disagree with the ideas in the books you're promoting, and would label them "propaganda." And yet, you're promoting them. That makes you a hypocrite.
My reply:
Liberals have such a limited repertoire. The h word- their favorite! Teaching values is different than indoctrinating about political systems. I couldn't be more clear. Under your definition every written work is propaganda. You're just in defensive mode. By the way, I am a certified Montessori teacher, reading instructor and parent educator. I know children's literature. Try reading Bruno Bettleheim and some other great minds on the importance of what we read to kids.
There were another half dozen or so emails in which I became progressively more careful of my words, taking the time to explain to Mr. Zilbert that criticizing a book is acceptable discourse, while ad hominem attacks - calling people names - is not.
He continued to call me a hypocrite saying that my labeling liberals as pro-death for supporting the murder of unborn babies was the same as him labeling me. Hoping for a breakthrough (I tend to take this kind of communication breakdown as a challenge and hope for some kind of positive outcome - not conversion of someone to my way of thinking, but just some kind of mutual respect as we agree to disagree), I explained that individuals are usually more nuanced than the religion and the party they subscribe to and we can't label them without knowing more.
But it was one of those hopeless conversations in which he ended up saying I had called him a baby-killer. Huh? I don't even know what his position is on abortion. I could guess, but without knowing for sure, I could never call someone that name. In fact I would never use that term. Most of you know that in my own pagan days I had an abortion (you can read about it here). This is a serious matter and I'm not the kind of person to hurl "baby-killer" at anyone. But it was that kind of discussion - me trying to be reasonable and strike some kind of civil chord and Mr. Z coming back at me with rapid fire as though we were in a duel-to-the-death.
I'd been holding Mr. Zilber's comment hoping to report some rapprochement, but all I got for my efforts was that I was hypocrite and not the nice lady I pretended to be.
According to his website, Mr. Z lives with his partner Isabella and Isabella’s daughter and a cat. He claims they all vote Democrat – which doesn’t surprise me since under Democrat rule cats belonging to Democrat families may end up having voting privileges.
I also hope if the book sells out and Mr. Z reprints it (it is self-published), that he will add one other important piece of propaganda to his tract. Since it is the cornerstone of the Democrat agenda – the litmus test as to whether you can even be in the party – it is amazing he overlooked it.
I’m seeing an illustration of an abortion mill with scared and confused girls going in:
Democrats make sure girls can kill their babies before they're born – just like mommy does.
Posted in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
My first reaction is that I don't want the government to be my mommy! I thought we were supposed to be in charge of the government in this country, not the other way around...
Posted by: Brenda on the S OR Coast | October 7, 2006 5:12 PM
Wow, Barbara, I am stunned. I certainly believe you...it just seems so absurd that someone would write such a book.
Your discourse with the author was very well done. I applaud your patience and your committment to civil conversation.
Thanks for sharing!
in grace,
Kathy
Posted by: Kathy in VA | October 7, 2006 11:27 PM
Bah hahahaha Barbara! That last post makes me laugh out loud. Mr. Z needs a lesson in elementary logic to review the fundamentals in debate and logic. Calling names and assigning labels doesn't do a lick of good to achieve anything in an adult discussion, and it violates good old fashioned debate.
Calm down Mr. Z, we can all talk about the book and our thoughts about it without getting nasty or defensive. I think equating an entire political party to the role of a parent is a bit frightening and frankly the analogy doesn't hold up. This Democratic household will not buy or borrow that book.
Posted by: Imajackson | October 7, 2006 11:29 PM
Count me in as another Democrat who found the book more than a little disturbing, but, Barbara - I have to say that I found the last portion of your post equally disturbing:
I'd been holding Mr. Zilber's comment hoping to report some rapprochement, but all I got for my efforts was that I was hypocrite and not the nice lady I pretended to be.
According to his website, Mr. Z lives with his partner Isabella and Isabella’s daughter and a cat. He claims they all vote Democrat – which doesn’t surprise me since under Democrat rule cats belonging to Democrat families may end up having voting privileges.
I also hope if the book sells out and Mr. Z reprints it (it is self-published), that he will add one other important piece of propaganda to his tract. Since it is the cornerstone of the Democrat agenda – the litmus test as to whether you can even be in the party – it is amazing he overlooked it.
I’m seeing an illustration of an abortion mill with scared and confused girls going in:
Democrats make sure girls can kill their babies before they're born – just like mommy does.
Seeing this kind of communication breakdown publicly posted on your blog, even if "he started it", does not make me feel communicated to in a loving way. The whole Democrats kill their babies bit isn't the kind of language that builds bridges or wins people to your way of thinking. And I am not sure I am getting the joke with the Democratic pets voting. Maybe I am just having a bad day.
You know I disagree with you on a lot of issues but come back here daily because of the deep respect I have for you. I usually find that you communicate in a way that connects me to you and makes your point of view attractive and understandable.
I am not feeling that way right now, after reading this post. I feel like we are on opposite "sides" in some kind of battle rather than human beings working together towards understanding. I hope your next posts will get back towards that feeling of bridge-building.
Posted by: Gen | October 8, 2006 12:55 AM
Gen, I guess I've given up. And your comment makes me feel like I'm some kind of domesticated conservative who's expected to behave a certain way to be validated by a liberal who finds a little wisdom in my blog. Sorry, but I'm not going to wear a muzzle on my mouth about pro-life issues. When it comes to abortion and its defense, you can expect me to come down hard every time.
Posted by: barbara | October 8, 2006 8:08 AM
Mrs. Curtis,
There's no need to back down to the liberals. I and hundreds of other people who read your blog will stand behind you and with you. As long as anyone, Dem or Republican is advocating the killing of babies, we have to fight.
Mrs. DMG
Posted by: Mrs. DMG | October 8, 2006 9:15 AM
Barbara, I hope it isn't true that you have given up on building bridges with people who think differently from you.
I am not trying to muzzle you - in fact I come here to your blog to hear your thoughts. I was trying to give you feedback about how your writing made me feel, which I thought you would value.
You have talked a lot in the past about trying to build bridges and help foster understanding with people who don't think like you so that you can reach out to them in love.
That doesn't make you a domesticated conservative, in my mind, but a powerful one who causes people to rethink their values by speaking the truth to them in love. I can tell you Ann Coulter does not make me rethink my values - people do not listen to others when they feel disliked and unlistened to.
You have spoken strongly about abortion in the past, and I did not take exception to what you wrote. If I were trying to muzzle you, surely I would have objected every time you brought it up?
It is the tone in this post that feels hurtful and antagonistic to me, and opposite to the way that you usually seem to be trying to write - to win people to your side rather than to do battle with people who feel differently.
There are plenty of shrill, fighting voices on the blogospere, and the Republican ones generally don't get heard by the liberals. The reason you get heard from the "other side" is that you do, usually, speak your truth in love. If that is going to change, then you will find that your power to affect change in the hearts of your readers changes too.
Posted by: Gen | October 8, 2006 12:08 PM
It's fascinating to see how a patient Conservative is so quickly labelled as 'unloving' when she's so brazen as to call murder, um, "murder".Building bridges might mean that a conversationalist might grant a person grace; but not the act itself. To say that this author (or any) is not communicating in a 'loving manner' when saying that abortion is a horrid thing, is to do no more than admit that the commenter has reached a point in their life that holds no moral roadblock to murder of an innocent.As one of the world's many socially-acceptable mental illnesses, this kind of thinking makes murder no less murder.I know someone who still believes we've never really been to the moon, and many others who continue to argue that the Holocaust never happened. Neither of these arguments point to the 'crime' of talking; but to head-in-the-sand denial. Talking, in fact, is the only thing left to civilized society that allows communities to grow together.Berating people for talking -- especially when one doesn't like what's being said -- is what leads to the 'rule of the minority'. Or 'squeaky-wheel politics', if you prefer. (see ACLU.org)Amazingly, liberal-thinking that has been so important to our history has degenerated to blind single-mindedness. The reality is that chastising someone for her beliefs is a much bigger crime than chastising someone for their actions.Hopefully, we'll all do better tomorrow.
Posted by: Dan Oblak | October 10, 2006 7:48 PM
