What he said!

Yesterday, I noted that the Oklahoman ran yet another letter from Charlie Taylor of Norman. In general, Taylor's letters engage in tired attacks against President Obama and against progressives and progressive policies. (And in general, they are quite stupid.)

But his most recent letter goes beyond being just stupid. It starts off with-- and I'm serious-- a mini book review:

Leonard Pitts Jr. (Commentary, Jan. 16) always writes an interesting column. I recently read his first novel, “Freeman,” and recommend it. “Freeman” doesn't read like most first novels — amateurish. Yes, it may be called a message book, the message being that “slavery was wrong, egregiously,” but it's a good novel. I'd give Pitts an A for his book...

This actually appeared in a major newspaper's letters section. And I love that Mr. Taylor gives this knowing critique about how most first novels read. As though he's an expert on such things. And seriously, is Freeman a "message book"? Compare Mr. Taylor's simplistic summary to a recent book review by someone who actually knows something about books:

Like much of American history, “Freeman” is a heart-rending tragedy of what, at our very worst, human beings are capable of doing to one another. Still, Sam and Tilda, and Prudence and Bonnie, as well, show us how, through the dignity of their own humanity, fresh hope can sometimes rise from despair. “Freeman” is an important addition to the literature of slavery and the Civil War, by a knowledgeable, compassionate and relentlessly truthful writer determined to explore both enslavement in all its malignancy and also what it truly means to be free.

Sure, the WaPo review was able to devote much more space to the book than a short letter to the editor, but that's the point: why even run a letter that includes such things?

Of course, Mr. Taylor's little review is just a rhetorical ploy to get to his larger point, one that echoes what Leonard Pitts said in a column that ran in the Oklahoman earlier this month. The Pitts column was thoughtful on the surface, but beneath that his real point was clear: it's OK for black people to be Republicans. That's fine as far as it goes, of course. But one wonders why a black person would support a political party that opposes many of the social programs that are so important for so many minorities-- all in the name of lower taxes for the fabulously wealthy (virtually all of whom are white). (Not to mention a party that has used the "southern strategy" to maintain its prominence for decades!)

In any event, what is amazing about Mr. Taylor's letter is that it adds nothing new to the discussion. Nothing at all. He simply distills what the Pitts column says to its main point-- in a way, I might add, that is quite amateurish.

In general, if a letter is going to respond to a columnist, it should do so in a way that isn't just "what he said!" in a less artful way. But this is the Oklahoman, and it often uses its letters to reinforce the messages put forward in propagandistic opinions pieces (and art!). The not infrequent appearance of banal and facile letters from Charlie Taylor is a testament to that.