(Publicity photo is from the KOIN website and links to the Erickson bio page)

"Despite (the fact) that it was the Martin Luther King holiday, President Bush spoke out against affirmative action."  -- David Erickson on the 21st of January, 2003 

   What's wrong with that sentence? 
   What is it about that sentence that forces one to challenge either the intelligence or the professionalism of KOIN-TV (Portland broadcast channel six) anchor, David Erickson?
   Give up?
   It's the word "despite."
   Here, I'll show you how this works.

   Despite the fact that it was Christmas, the children found presents under the tree.

   Pretty stupid thing for someone to say.  The presents aren't there despite the fact that it is Christmas.  The presents are there because it's Christmas.  The only way the word despite could properly be used there would be if the presents were out of place.  Here, try this.  Despite the fact that it was August 25, the children found a tree in the living room, and under that tree saw presents!
   Now, the word "despite" makes sense.

   In the old days, words had specific meanings.  Dr. King knew all those meanings, and put them together in mostly  true and brilliant ways when he spoke.  What these younger fellows like Erickson  need to do is to study his  most famous speech.  It's called his "I have a dream" speech.  Contained within it, you will find the most famous words spoken in that most famous speech.
   Schools once taught English composition, which allowed people to instantly recognize those most famous words as what used to be known as the "theme" of the speech -- the core idea he wanted to get across to his audience.

   King said he longed for the day that his children (what you call African-Americans because of their skin color) would be judged by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin.  He referred specifically to his children in that comment, but it was a generic call, or what is known as a statement of principle.  He was talking about all people.  His larger meaning was clear to the world.

   Which is why I wonder why King's meaning wasn't clear to Erickson. 
   Erickson is quite young, as most television journalists are -- the on-camera ones, anyway.  He isn't old enough to have been alive when King gave that speech.  I was.  I am old enough to have heard from my crib in a NE Portland home, the Day of Infamy speech by Franklin Delano Roosevelt following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  It is quite apparent that Erickson understands now about as much of the King speech as I understood of the Roosevelt speech, then.
    One thing is clear, here. I was making my living as a writer/author/poet/journalist/editor before the young Mr. Erickson was born.  So, as his senior in this field, I have some advice for him.

    Learn the meaning of English words, Dave. 
    Despite the fact that it was Martin Luther King's birthday, Bush spoke out against affirmative action?  No, Dave.  Because it was Martin Luther King's birthday, Bush spoke out against affirmative action. Or, to be precise, he spoke out against that form of affirmative action which  is a racial preference mechanism, and thus guarantees outcome  based on the skin color of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s children.

   Guaranteeing results on a racial basis is clearly unconstitutional.  This is because there is a difference between the terms "opportunity" and "outcome."  (For the purpose of this essay, I am assuming Mr. Erickson admires the U.S. Constitution, but simply doesn't understand what it says.)
   As young as he is, Dave Erickson went to schools which treated Dr. King and his famous speech as damn near holy writ.  He must have heard those key words a hundred times between his first day in kindergarten and his last day in college. Those words must be burned like billboard text into his brain.  King dreamed of the day when his children would be judged on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin.  The content of their character instead of the color of their skin.  The content of their character instead of the color of their skin.

   And, Dave Erickson thinks that those words support the concept of racial (skin-color-based) admission policies for American universities?  What's next, Dave?  Balcony-only theatre seating for whites? Hotels and restaurants that do not serve whites? Separate water fountains?
   You actually believe racial preferences in favor of whites were  bad, but racial preferences in favor of blacks are good? 
   Then, what the hell were you doing this morning when you said that President Bush spoke out against affirmative action despite the fact that it was the Martin Luther King holiday?

   I believe I know the answer to that.
   You are politically-correct to the marrow of your bones.  You are incapable of seeing beyond your cultural prejudices.  You got into the news business to "make a difference."  To "change the world." 
   Not "to accurately and truthfully report the events of your time."
   You are a liberal, and liberals believe that Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and is a member of a kind of royal family which thinks it deserves political power.  The Bush family is old New England blueblood, white aristocracy, and very different from the Kennedys, who are old New England blueblood, white aristocracy, born with silver spoons in their mouths and who think they deserve political power.

   (For the reader who thinks the Bush family is from Texas, George Bush is a direct descendent of Johnathan Fairbanks who in 1633 built what is known to be the oldest house in America. The house is located in - I hope you can handle this - Dedham, Massachusetts, USA.  That's right.  The Bushes beat the Kennedy to Massachusetts. )

Well, I'll be damned, you say.  (That, unfortunately, is possible.) The only difference between the Kennedys and the Bushes is their brand of politics.  The Bush family is conservative Republican.  The Kennedy family is liberal Democrat.
   What an interesting thought.  Here, let's test it.
   If George Bush appointed his brother Jeb as Attorney General of the United States, what would you have to say about it?  What would the American mainstream press have to say about it?
   JFK did exactly that.  He appointed his brother as Attorney General.  Have you ever heard a single liberal journalist describe that act in a negative manner?
   And, let's take tax policy.  JFK proposed and got a reduction in taxes.  He said it was necessary to get the nation's economy going in the right direction.  George Bush has proposed a reduction in taxes.  He says it is necessary to get the nation's economy going in the right direction.
   What is the difference between the two?

   Now, it all comes clear.
   The meaning of King's words is not the point.  The actions taken by JFK are not the point.
   Politics is the point.
   At last I undestand why Clinton could send troops to more places on Earth than any president since Roosevelt and yet face no major public demonstrations or negative press barrage for his militaristic adventurism.  Why he could nail every intern and stewardess in sight while feminists attacked his victims.  Why he could sell nuclear and MIRV technology to communists and it is Bush's missile defense support which is endangering America.
   It isn't what is being said or done, but the politics of who is saying or doing it.

   You used the word "despite" because you want your viewers to think that President Bush is a racist.  Your party has decided that calling Republicans racists is the key to regaining control of the White House and Congress in the next election. 
   Your ends are more important than your means.  Political power is more important than the truth. 
   I only see one problem, here. 

   Your approach assumes your viewers are stupid.  It assumes they haven't noticed that Bush has filled his top administration posts with minorities and women -- that these viewers of yours don't recognize that people like Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice are not white males.  That your viewers can't see that the judicial choice of his that the Democrats, academia and the press hates most has a last name which clearly identifies him as being of Hispanic descent.
  Yes, there is a risk to this game you are playing.  But, that risk may be a risk worth taking.
   With an attitude like that, you could be headed for a network news post with one of the big three.  If you make it, there will be two reasons for your success.  You will succeed:  1) despite the fact that what you say isn't true and 2) because what you say isn't true.

(LL)

© 2003 Oregon Magazine.  No photo credit for the Erickson publicity shot was given on the KOIN website.