Nobody asks you to give names and addresses for all the right-wing creeps you run across in your neck of the woods.

They aren't published. Therefore, my experiences are anecdotal: thoroughly representative of my life and of what informs my outlook, but not (as has been pointed out here) necessarily representative of all Republicans, or all fundamentalist Christians.

My point is that it seems to be OK to characterize an entire class of people who have deliberately, and professionally, published their thoughts in a particular way without quoting any of them.

In this way it's possible to say, "Oh, look! Someone said that Geoge Bush, who likes to wear a cowboy hat and boots, is acting like a cowboy in foreign policy! He/she must hate everything about America and all Americans! And all his/her friends must, as well!" Never mind that Bush invites the comparison himself. Never mind that to criticize and even to condemn the foreign policy of political leadership isn't the same thing as to declare an entire nation to be beneath consideration. Never mind that the person doing the "summing up" may have his own agenda in the halls of academe.

Re: Johnson: If the man is a scholar, he can document. If he doesn't, then he wants to maintain plausible deniability when he runs into someone at work. Or, maybe, he wants to use his position to make trouble for his professional rivals without actually having to confront any of them personally.

How many European intellectuals do you think are still watching "Dallas"? What kind of hollow criterion is that? Who was that detail cynically included to appeal to? Americans, that's who. So we can nod sagely, because we knew this about European TV viewing habits. Not because we know that European intellectuals watch "Dallas" as a group, or that European intellectuals watch any American imports, or that they watch none.

If one can set up ahead of time that "all intellectuals" who oppose American policy or who dislike an aspect of American culture and have the temerity to say so are therefore "cultural racists" (a new PC term, by the way -- can we look for it in conservative publications?) and anti-American scum, then no one will have to read the words of said intellectuals thoughtfully, i.e., for their content. It classifies their debate points before they even enter a keystroke, and, incidentally, sanctifies the words of the critic in the eyes of the people who would rather not think about the criticism. Cha-ching!

I knew you would bring up Chomsky. I hear about "many others", and yet don't find them quoted. Maybe you could try finding 10 or 20 of them to quote once in a while just for variety's sake.

Regards--
Mary Anne