Wow. Sometimes I am astounded by the depths of partisanship. That anyone would interpret the article as an
apologia for Trump is, quite frankly, absurd. It should give you pause to reflect that you could interpret it as such. The "gist" of the article is summed up by the following paragraph:
But what Melania Trump’s plagiarism demonstrates more than anything else is that political speeches are largely vapid and interchangeable. They’re so impersonal and without meaning that Melania could give Michelle’s speeches, and Michelle could give Melania’s, and hardly anyone would know the difference. The distance between the parties is not so great: they are united by their common clichés.
Oh, I got that all right. Except for the fact that you're glossing over the vast majority of the article, which includes the explicit statement that the act of plagiarism "reflects somewhat poorly on Michelle Obama", that the Democrats should be "deeply humiliated" that any part of any speech of theirs could possibly be spoken at the RNC, that having done so is a "major failure on the part of Democrats". That victim-blaming mindset does nothing for me, especially since this speech is from 2008 and if the contents were so offensive to liberal ideals then they should have been brought up then. There's only one group that deserves any blame for this scandal and that is the plagiarists. The article's attempt to shift the blame to the Democrats is really nothing but an attempt to excuse the Trump campaign of their wrongdoing. And as innocent as a little cribbing might seem, plagiarism is a significant ethical violation. People have lost their careers over it, and those jobs weren't even Oval Office related.
The only one who is glossing over anything is you. The vast majority of the article was about how the Democrats have adopted the conservative language of “bootstrapping.” And that it is a "cruel joke" to tell the poor that they simply need to work harder to stop being poor.
You can rest assured that the left-wing of the Democratic party has been criticizing the Obama administration for a long time, and mainstream Democrats since the 90s. In any event, the article was NOT a defense of the Trumps, and has nothing to do with "shifting blame." That is an absurd interpretation that is only possible if you are blinded by partisanship. I mean, for fuck's sake, the author is
... a queer Arab-Canadian civil rights attorney practicing in Boston, Massachusetts. He currently works as a private attorney representing criminal defendants and low wage workers in cases against their employers. Oren is a member of the Mass NLG Board and a proud member in many community groups in Boston focusing on prison abolition, LGBTQ liberation, workers’ rights and tenants’ rights. He received his B.A. from Brandeis University and J.D. from Northeastern University School of Law.
https://www.nlg.org/oren-nimni
Yea. A gay, Canadian attorney of Arab descent who specializes in low-wage clients in cases against their employers who is a member of organizations that focus on workers and tenants rights - typical Trump supporter.
And I hate to break it to you, but a "little cribbing" as you call it is only considered a "serious ethical violation" by people in academia. At best it amounts to an embarrassment to the typical person, but hardly a
serious ethical violation. For fuck's sake. The contents of the speech were so hackneyed that it doesn't even seem far-fetched that it was all a coincidence. But the point is, who cares? This won't change anyone's opinion on either side. I'm glad the Clinton campaign has stayed far away from this. Pursuing this attack will not yield any votes, and risks alienating people.
