The ugliness of the College Republicans

Via Wonkette, this passage from a Nation web-only piece on the national convention of the College Republicans is almost too easy to mock, though it is amusing:

By the time I encountered Cory Bray, a towering senior from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, the beer was flowing freely. "The people opposed to the war aren't putting their asses on the line," Bray boomed from beside the bar. Then why isn't he putting his ass on the line? "I'm not putting my ass on the line because I had the opportunity to go to the number-one business school in the country," he declared, his voice rising in defensive anger, "and I wasn't going to pass that up."

But the rest of the article is far more disturbing. Behold the ugly legacy of Dinesh D'Souza et al:

[Chairman candidate Mike] Davidson became the stuff of legend for his activity in the liberal hotbed of Berkeley. As secretary of the California College Republicans, he built dozens of chapters in schools throughout California, helped deliver a record turnout for Bush in the state and organized a now-famous "pro-America" rally in People's Park. His candidacy has been endorsed by Representative David Dreier and Ann Coulter, who hailed him as a pioneer of "the new McCarthyism." And with good reason. Last February, in a [David] Horowitz-inspired redbaiting operation, College Republicans at Santa Rosa Junior College in Northern California posted fliers on the doors of ten professors' offices bearing a red star and a warning quoting a 1950s-era state education code forbidding "the advocacy and teaching of communism." One professor's crime was displaying a poster for the film Fahrenheit 9/11 in his office window. Soon after, a press release appeared on the California College Republicans' website identifying the stunt as "Operation Red Scare."

Yes, in the modern Republican Party, when someone says you're practicing "the new McCarthyism," they're endorsing you!

In the end, Davidson lost to a candidate who was accused of raising funds for the College Republicans under misleading pretenses from seniors with dementia. Classy stuff.

(PS TNR Online has a less colorful piece on the convention here.)

Comments

[t]

So ALL College Republicans are the same just like ALL liberals want us to fail in Iraq. Brendan, we don't want another Rove.

[Brendan Nyhan]

Where did I say they're all the same?

[t]

Look at your title. Maybe you just want to attract attention. Don't worry; everyone does it. I understand. Who's going to read a blurb with the title "The ugliness of some College Republicans"?

[Brendan Nyhan]

This is insanely nitpicky. I'm writing about what it says about the culture of a specific organization (the College Republicans) when one chairman candidate is praised for practicing the "new McCarthyism" and the other is accused of fraudulently raising money from seniors with dementia. Of course it doesn't mean every single member of the organization is ugly. And yes, this is different than issuing sweeping accusations of treason. I think this is all quite obvious.

(Deleted extraneeous repeated comments.)

[t]

Brendan, you do a good job at being nitpicky and pointing out the destructive politics that is all around us. Words are powerful in the hands (or mouths) of those who know how to use them. Obviously, you didn't come close to Rove's accusations for multiple reasons (e.g., Nyhan v. Rove). This does not mean we need not be vigilant in our own standards when reporting on the little ol' College Republicans.

[Michael Koplow]

Thank you, t, for comment number 5. I was afraid this was going to turn into an is-not/is-so quarrel. You're absolutely right--Brendan's comment about being insanely nitpicky was a surprise. I don't know when nitpickery becomes insane--there's probably a threshold somewhere--but I've been an admirer of Brendan's and his former colleagues' very sane nitpickage since the Spinsanity days.

But this all does raise the question of how you refer to a group without spending more time on disclaimers about your own fairness than on making your point, especially in the case of something like "College Republicans," where the phrase can refer either to the organization or to its members as individuals.

[t]

Thank you for acting as my articulate voice. You nailed it.

Whenever you refer to an organization without immediate reference to one of its (bad apple) officers, you are labeling each of its members as individuals. It is just one of the (sneaky, though perhaps unintentional) ways to view a member with scorn - as long as they are or were association with the organization.

A simple disclaimer is not sexy but it doesn't have to take any extra time. Just talk about the individual member(s) instead of the organization, unless the organization has adopted (actual, constructive, or otherwise) the view of the individual member.