Not Often I Agree with Maureen Dowd

Selmaby Jerry Richardson1/18/15
It’s not often that I agree with Maureen Dowd, but a reasonable person should be willing to accept truth where they find it. Dowd just reported some important truth in her latest article, Not Just a Movie. That truth is:

The movie Selma is Artful Falsehood.

In her most recent article in the NYT, Dowd describes her viewing of the movie Selma—yeah, that critical-to-our-national-security movie that motivated Obama to stage a celebrity-viewing at the White House during his busy schedule of not fighting terrorism.

Dowd, who for years has been one of the darlings of the Progressives’ NYT propaganda team, makes it unmistakably clear that the movie, directed by Ava Duvernay, does a falsehood-hatchet job on former President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Wow, I’m all broke-up over this desecration of LBJ.

Lyndon Baines Johnson, for a while, was given somewhat reluctant praise—he was a southern-Dem-light in the glorious-liberal-light of JFK—from the progressive left because of his self-defined war on poverty—another one of the many “wars” lost by the Democrats after wasting vast amounts of taxpayer money.

As far as I’m concerned, Lyndon Johnson is the single biggest political embarrassment of all times for the state of Texas. Not only did LBJ orchestrate the “limited-war” idiocy of the Vietnam war—a mindless strategy that has haunted USA military strategy ever since; be he also fathered many of the existing entitlement programs that have spent this nation into arguably un-reparable debt: “During his presidency, his agenda for Congress was to pass his “Great Society” programs, wide-ranging initiatives on health and health care, education, conservation, urban renewal, etc.”

Despite the fact that the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed under LBJ, he was dishonestly portrayed in the movie Selma as “butting heads with King and saying that giving blacks the right to vote is not a priority.” Simply another example of how all truth must necessarily bend to any narrative of Progressivism, especially a narrative from the sacred halls of Hollywood.

The long-lasting racial animosity created by this film will fall right in line with the latest attacks on the accusations of white-racism that have resulted from the lies told about the nation’s police forces: “Cops hate blacks.” Dowd’s description of this intentional deception would be stunning if most of us weren’t already inured to Hollywood’s non-ending propaganda:

DuVernay sets the tone for her portrayal of Lyndon Johnson as patronizing and skittish on civil rights in the first scene between the president and Dr. King. L.B.J. stands above a seated M.L.K., pats him on the shoulder, and tells him “this voting thing is just going to have to wait” while he works on “the eradication of poverty.”

Many of the teenagers by me bristled at the power dynamic between the men. It was clear that a generation of young moviegoers would now see L.B.J.’s role in civil rights through DuVernay’s lens.

And that’s a shame… But the director’s talent makes her distortion of L.B.J. more egregious. Artful falsehood is more dangerous than artless falsehood, because fewer people see through it.
Maureen Dowd

The irony of her criticism is the fact that Maureen Dowd and journalists of her persuasion (Progressives) have for years now been expert-practitioners, 10th-degree-blackbelt masters of artful falsehood.

It is a somewhat-interesting question as to which institution has damaged our society more with this black art, Progressive-journalism or Hollywood? Maybe it’s a toss-up?

© 2015, Jerry Richardson • (1138 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Not Often I Agree with Maureen Dowd

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    The irony of her criticism is the fact that Maureen Dowd and journalists of her persuasion (Progressives) have for years now been expert-practitioners, 10th-degree-blackbelt masters of artful falsehood.

    Indeed. Under normal circumstances, that comment would be so revealing and contradictory that it would be thoroughly embarrassing. But reality matters little to the Marxist/Progressive mind. As Dennis Prager says, “Truth is not a left wing value.”

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    One thing to note is that, prior to running for President, LBJ had a history of opposing civil rights initiatives. How much of this was expedience for a senator from Texas (potentially vulnerable in the primary), how much conviction, we can’t know now. One book on the 1960 presidential race suggests that he never cared much about race one way or another, which seems reasonable to me.

    As for Maureen Dowd, she used to be a harsh critic of the Clintons, though (tellingly) she put that in abeyance during the 1998 campaign season. She may well be again once Slick Hilly the Fire Witch officially opens her campaign, at least until such criticism is harmful to the Plunderbund. But other wise my opinion was shown a decade ago when I did a short parody on the music group Mad Maureen and the Psychotics. (I recently had a spin-off, the gospel group Katie and the Perkettes, though of course their idea of “gospel” was leftist boilerplate.) At some point I may work up another on Barry and His Parrot Chorus, which I mentioned elsewhere here recently.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      There was a natural Christian or human compassion by people such as John Adams and Abraham Lincoln to “the colored man” as he was known then (or by other, less PC, titles). But especially in the case of Lincoln, what was politically doable at any one moment was quite another thing.

      The Democrats had long been the party of keeping blacks as second class citizens, at best. And then one day, for whatever reason, it simply became politically useful (as homosexuals are today) to make use of them. And as any objective observer would say, this marriage has done great harm to blacks in this country.

      Yes, it’s important to know history and the real story. But I think the only reason many people worry about yesterday’s story is because they want it to prop up and support today’s narrative. What narrative of Maureen Dowd’s this movie conflicts with, I’m not entirely sure. I guess in her mind LBJ was always the hero. But LBJ was the worst sort of son of a bitch.

      But he is useful as the icon of liberal do-gooderism. After all, he “fought poverty.” Never mind that he never eradicated it and wasted trillions of dollars in what was little more than a political publicity stunt. The important thing for liberals is their narcissism and power. They must think of themselves, and be thought of, as caring (and as a kind of superior caretaker whose great benevolence must not go unnoticed and unrewarded).

      Like I said, for conservatives, what really happened in the past is important, if only to maintain the integrity of truth. But for the conservative it is mostly unimportant regarding racial issues. We know that a colorblind society is best, one wherein no one is the stage-prop “victim” and no one is the stage-prop “oppressor,” where is really is the content of character, not skin color, that is judged. We need to all learn how to live in harmony and to diffuse the hatred and paranoia that is being stoked by religious, political, and civil rights leaders.

      This is a moral requirement of human beings, particularly of Christians or those who are inheritors of the superior Judeo-Christian legacy. But I see no end to the need and usefulness for blacks and Democrats to forward the old narratives. It will be interesting to hear from someone who has seen this movie to see what kind of narrative it is meant to carry…one of reconciliation or one of eternal grievance.

  3. GHG says:

    Color me jaded, but the Dowdy one is a dyed in the wool progressive, which is to say she doesn’t give a rat’s patootie about historical truth unless it serves her in some way to do so. Could it be to protect the reputation of a liberal icon from half a century ago? I’m thinking that doesn’t have the heft to inspire a column. I’m missing her source of motivation, not that I care.

    I’m no authority by any stretch, but everything I’ve learned about LBJ is that he was a vulgar and crude man who was a bare knuckle politician. He cared about political expediency, not the plight of black people. His motivation is no different than the progressives today – they don’t REALLY care about people, they care about growing the power of the government and if advocating for this group or that group of people is politically expedient – then they’re all for it.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Ditto, Mr. Lesser. You’re right on.

      Rush was talking about “Selma” today and say it’s likely the reason it was snubbed regarding Oscar nominations was because it is critical of LBJ.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      After my father was killed in Vietnam, our family got to meet Lyndon the Bane. Having read J. Evetts Haley’s A Texan Looks at Lyndon, I chose not to go. I have never regretted that decision for a moment. (One of my earlier posts here, as I recall, looked into the gross flaws revealed by an anecdote about Lyndon the Bane reported in Presidential Anecdotes.)

  4. Jerry Richardson says:

    More truth about LBJ’s war on poverty:

    As Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation put it, “In the 50 years since [LBJ’s 1964 State of the Union speech which announced the “war on poverty”], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the ‘causes’ rather than the mere ‘consequences’ of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely.”

    Delayed Reaction

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *