Langford column: Truth or parody?
Guest Column
BY WENDELL RAMAGE
Published:  
Wednesday, December 10, 2014 6:05 PM CST
 
Marilyn Langford’s column last week was 
about a Republican congressional committee which found President Obama 
and his staff “guiltless” in the Benghazi incident. I considered the 
column to be intriguing. Perhaps, because I have spent my adult life 
dealing with literary analysis, I saw in it all the characteristics of a
 specific genre. It was a parody, a kind of writing that pokes fun at 
what, on the surface, it seems to support.
A PARODY
 uses unnecessary repetition to achieve an undeserved emphasis. Langford
 begins her column by repeating the word “Benghazi” three consecutive 
times. She makes each repetition so emphatic that the single word is a 
sentence in itself. This emphasis is exaggeration, another trait of a 
parody. For an intelligent reader, one Benghazi would have been 
sufficient to relay Langford’s message. Three Benghazis, each as a 
sentence, was over-kill. It was like killing an ant with a hydrogen 
bomb. Why did she emphasize her point so thunderously? A psychological 
principle indicates that the more uncertain one is of his view, the 
louder he screams it.
LANGFORD DELVED into farce
 when she concluded readers were sick of hearing about Benghazi. Then, 
she plowed forward with a whole column on the very subject she said was 
making readers sick. Why would she want to make county readers sick? She
 talked about conspiracies being rift in the country. Was this a 
conspiracy? I couldn’t tell.
THERE WAS something
 classic about the way Langford presented readers the findings of the 
congressional committee. The committee determined President Obama and 
his staff were “guiltless” in the Benghazi tragedy. Langford seemed to 
believe that being guiltless was a major victory for truth and 
integrity. All it showed is that the president and administration had 
not to have perpetrated actionable crimes.
THE PRESIDENT maintained unawareness and lack
 of involvement in the events of that night in Libya. Isn’t that a crime
 in itself? It was Democratic President Harry Truman who kept the sign 
on his White House desk: “The buck stops here.” In short, the president 
is ultimately responsible. Claiming ignorance or denying involvement 
does not absolve responsibility. With President Obama, the buck never 
gets to his desk. It goes to some remote, shadowy desk, to an unknown 
and without the president’s knowledge. In the Benghazi situation, the 
buck is said to have landed on the desk of a group of nameless 
intelligence analysts. The president is unaware, a stranger to 
personnel, isolated, uninformed and so politically inactive, I feel 
sorry for him. No wonder he spends time on the golf course. He doesn’t 
have anything else to do.
CONSIDER THE multitude
 of scandals that define his presidency: The veterans’ care scandal, the
 IRS scandal, the Affordable Care scandal, the domestic and foreign 
spying scandal, Benghazi, etc. The president was ignorant of every 
aspect of these troubling situations. Not only was he uninvolved, he 
didn’t know what had happened or who had done what. If the president Is 
telling the truth, why didn’t he know? Why wasn’t he involved? One must 
wonder who our leader is, who is running the Ship of State and who is in
 charge. For the record, using a small reason to justify something when 
there is a larger reason that invalidates the small reason is another 
kind of fallacy.
MY FAVORITE part of Langford’s 
“parody” was her comment about people who watch Fox News. Triumphantly, 
she proclaimed that people who watch Fox News are less informed than 
others and there are studies to prove it. “Less informed” is the 
politically correct way of saying “more ignorant”. Langford must have 
spent considerable time working on that part of the column because never
 have so many fallacies of reason occupied so small a space.  When I was
 a young boy, my daddy made me understand that one must not clump a 
whole group into one mold. In short, it is inherently wrong to assume 
that all Fox viewers are alike. Some Fox fans may be members of MENSA 
while others may be ignorant, but the group will be as diverse as any 
other large group. There are numerous studies which prove it. I would 
like to know the origins of the studies Langford cited. Are they 
harboring a bias, an agenda? What were their qualifications?  Surely 
Langford knows one can find studies which support every bias and agenda 
under the sun. By the way, I watch MSNBC and Fox. I wonder what that 
makes me.
LANGFORD’S DICTION demonstrated an 
unmistakable disdain for all republicans and for FOX. She used loaded 
terms such as “downright lies” and “demonized” in her reference to them.
 I admit I don’t know the difference between a lie and a downright lie, 
so I don’t know which one the president is guilty of. I do know there is
 a substantial number of videos which show the president’s penchant for 
telling untruths. Once one is caught lying, all his statements become 
suspect. The president took no chance of being misunderstood. He lied 
all along.
IT MADE me proud that Langford did 
depart from the usual democrat response to every criticism of the 
president. She did not introduce the “race card”. She understands that 
one can disapprove of a policy, an action or a plan for reasons other 
than that the president is half African-American.
I know Ms. 
Langford’s column was no parody. She wasn’t making fun of her own views.
 She was serious. She was expressing what she believed, and I admire any
 one’s courage to do that. There were many accusations, and they were 
stated in strong terms. One party seems to wish the other party would 
vanish from the earth, and the other party is guilty of the same 
feelings. Does anyone think of peaceful co-existence anymore?
I GREW
 up in an avidly political family. One of my father’s joys was to be a 
part of a fierce political debate. One might think he and his opponent 
were about to fight to the death, but they didn’t. When the debate was 
over, they shook hands and left still the best of friends. What has 
happened to us that we no longer observe even simple rules of courtesy 
where people with opposing views are concerned? Have we become such 
egomaniacs that we think there is only one way and that is our way? 
Until we become respectful of others and their opinions, we are less 
than the great republic our ancestors created, regardless of whether we 
are Democrats or Republicans.
YES! THIS column is a parody…of sorts.
Wendell Ramage of Forsyth is the former editor of the Reporter and is a retired English teacher.