The New York Times today illustrates one of the more dishonest tactics used in any discussion of issues of civil rights today – indeed, a dishonest tactic that has long been used to discredit opponents of a given piece of legislation by so-called supporters of civil rights. In this case, the tactic is used with regard to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck fairness Act. Here’s how.

The new president can play a useful role in helping to rally Senate Democrats not to rest on their Ledbetter laurels and to persuade Republicans to come on board. In the House, only three Republicans voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. In the Senate, five did. By now, Republican opposition to civil rights and pay equity is not surprising. That makes it all the sadder.

Do you see it? It is right there in the second-to-last sentence. The editorial writer has defined opposition to a particular piece of legislation as opposition to civil rights and fairness. And that, my friends, is an act of unfairness and dishonesty.

After all, is animus towards civil rights and fairness the only possible reason for opposing these particular pieces of legislation? Could it be that there are flaws in the well-intentioned pieces of legislation that make some question whether their adoption is wise if those flaws are not corrected? Could it be that there are other pieces of legislation that might address the issue in a way that particular legislators prefer? In such cases, might not a negative vote represent service of the public interest rather than opposition to civil rights and fair pay? After all, the mere tagging of a piece of legislation with the words “civil rights” or “fairness” does not necessarily make it the only vehicle for advancing those agendas..

Posted by: Greg at 09:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.