Unethical Quote Of The Week: NY1 Host Errol Louis

“Let me suggest, because some of her strategists have said this kind of quietly, it’s not really a big thing on this campaign trail: a lot of this is sexism. It’s buried so deep that people just say, ‘I don’t trust her, she doesn’t keep her word.’ And then you turn it around and say, ‘What politician does?’”

—-CNN political commentator and NY1 host Errol Louis in response to CNN’s Chris Cuomo’s question regarding Hillary Clinton’s a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll that indicated that Clinton had a 56% unfavorable rating even among Democrats.

The T-Rex in "Jurassic Park" was also a female, and I'm sure sexism had a lot to do with everyone not liking her, either...

The T-Rex in “Jurassic Park” was also a female, and I’m sure sexism had a lot to do with everyone not liking her, either…

It must be wonderful for a politician to have an automatic, guilt-inducing, candor-suppressing excuse for every botch, failure, example of misconduct and instance of terrible judgment. You have to pity Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Robert Dole, George W. Bush, John Kerry, and so many others–when people said they distrusted or disliked them, they had to accept responsibility for it, and conclude that they must be doing something wrong. After all, nobody is prejudiced against white males: when people think they screw up, it’s because they really are incompetent or corrupt. They have to be accountable. How brilliant of the Democrats to hit on this fool-proof—literally—formula: just find black or female standard bearers and all criticism can, and for a lot of journalists will, be attributed to prejudice and bigotry. One has to wonder if Democrats will ever dare to run a Presidential candidate again who doesn’t have this built-in armor.

Without this versatile reality-warping and truth-defying device, I am certain that right and left, including African Americans, would have been howling for Barack Obama’s head long ago, with the news media handing out the torches and pitch forks. The engine for this double-standard is presumed bigotry, unfair but apparently impossible to rebut.

Not that it matters, since I am a white male and thus presumptively sexist and only capable of seeing Hillary Clinton’s career, deeds and words through crap-tinted spectacles, but to suggest that a white male candidate who handled the ongoing e-mail episode like Clinton, ran an influence peddling foundation like Clinton’s, and who spit out jaw-dropping and inept examples of public deceit, dishonesty and “I really do think you are all idiots” talking points with the atomic clock-like regularity of Clinton, would be anything but wildly disliked and distrusted requires either epic mendacity or pathological self-delusion.

The best part of Louis’s statement in the kicker: “It’s buried so deep that people just say, ‘I don’t trust her, she doesn’t keep her word.’ And then you turn it around and say, ‘What politician does?’Forget for the nonce that this is the granddaddy of all “everybody does it” rationalizations. What does Louis think he is saying? That we should trust people who lie to us and don’t keep their word? That we should like politicians who do this? That we should only trust and like blacks and women who lie and can’t be trusted?

It is a tangential issue, but one that I obsess over regularly. The quote is extraordinarily absurd spin, unequivocal idiocy and instant ethics rot. Why is someone capable of uttering such garbage deemed worthy of having a guest slot on CNN? Why doesn’t commentary like that automatically get Errol Lewis shipped to MSNBC in a crate?

Fact: People distrust Hillary Clinton because she has proven herself untrustworthy. People don’t believe Hillary Clinton because she lies with reckless abandon and stunning regularity. People don’t like Hillary Clinton because she is untrustworthy and dishonest, and laughs like Cruella DeVille.

And sexism has absolutely nothing to do with it.


9 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Week: NY1 Host Errol Louis

  1. I assume that this Errol Louis character denounced all of Sarah Palin’s detractors as the sexist pigs that they are.

  2. This sort of attitude is amazing, and really underlies a lot of the radical leftist stuff going on right now. It’s assumed that all white people are racist, all males are sexist, and all straights or cisgendered people are LGBT-phobic. If you claim not to be, you’re either lying, or it’s ‘subconscious’ bias that you’re not aware of. While there IS a subconscious in-group bias in human psychology (that is to say, we are predisposed towards people who are like us, in terms of race, culture, or tribe), it is not nearly as pronounced as proponents of this theory claim.

    It’s really wonderfully convenient for activists, on multiple levels. You can, first of all, inflate the number of people supposedly working against you, making you look like the underdog if need be. This is because even if they have done nothing to harm you, those who are not in your minority in-group must be biased against your group, simply because they are not members of the in-group. (Though try explaining the incredible irony of such a statement to those using it.) In other situations, you can claim a specific person is racist/sexist/etc. based on a small subset of gaffes or ‘microaggressions’, even when they have not made overtly aggressive gestures or statements. Their denials of bias somehow prove bias in the Orwellian world of modern victim politics, the same way that non-evidence of a conspiracy proves its existence in the minds of paranoid conspiracy theorists. Lastly, if you want to, you can vastly inflate your own numbers by being outraged on behalf of others, by claiming that they would also be outraged if they were not inculcated with the presumed subconscious biases of the majority. Thus, my grandfather, a Mexican immigrant, would be considered to subconsciously be a self-hating racist because he believes in cultural integration and opposes illegal immigration.

    What I think it really boils down to is an inverted version of ‘mansplaining’; activists and the professionally outraged telling you that they know what you think better than you do. Similarly, if you’re a member of a supposedly victimized group and you don’t see bias everywhere, you have somehow been brainwashed by mainstream society to support the agenda of the cisheteropatriarchy. (The word may be authentic frontier gibberish, but it’s dead useful for succinctly stating the far left’s beliefs.)

    I would post a TL;DR, but my mastery of the English language clearly posits a subconscious aggression against the illiterate.

    • Well, this was a well thought out post and I even learned a new term: cisheteropatriarcy. I must be a member of this group and frankly I don’t give a damn. One thing I would like to point out: Errol Lewis probably has a great job waiting for him in the Clinton administration III if she gets elected.

      • It’s a reference to a much earlier post on this blog. Clearly this kind of inside joke means that I’m prejudiced against new readers.

    • I’d also like to point out, as an addendum, that these sort of attitudes, sadly, make compromise impossible. Compromise, which is the bedrock of social progress (few such victories were won overnight), requires that both sides be trusted by the other to negotiate in good faith. This line of thought, however, is based on entirely the opposite assumption – that no matter what, the ‘majority’ will never operate in good faith.

      • There is currently no interest in compromise with the current Democratic leaders any more than Stalin was interested in compromising with the kulaks.

  3. Hillary’s sex has nothing to do with it. She is a liar, a felon, a cheat, divisive, and with a wonderful history of behavior that demonstrates these traits. I find it amusing in the extreme that this woman who road her husband’s coattails to positions of power for decades (and for that purpose, aided and abetted his sexual misconduct as well) can now pretend that she is and always has been a feminist. More double-talk.

    I’m waiting for the excuse that the real problem is that she’s not just a woman, but (oh! no!) a white woman to boot.

    She just isn’t likeable. Or believable. Or warm. Or human. Does the “ick” factor work only on actions, or on people as well? I’d put her “ick factor” at 250% minimum. But she’s going to be the next POTUS, god help us all.

    • “I’d put her “ick factor” at 250% minimum. But she’s going to be the next POTUS, god help us all.”

      E2 wins Eeyore of the Month!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.