Dept. of Double Standards: Holder's "Nation of Cowards" v. Gramm's "Nation of Whiners"

When John McCain's economic adviser Phil Gramm said that this country is a "nation of whiners" when it comes to the economy, the Washington Post featured its 1100 word story on Gramm's controversial remark on the front page: "Gramm Remark Adds to McCain's Difficulty Addressing the Economy"

When Barack Obama's attorney general Eric Holder said that America is a "nation of cowards" when it comes to race, the Post buried its 200-word story on the second page, nestled amongst a bunch of ads.

Why didn't Holder's remark get the same treatment as Gramm's? Sure, the campaign's over, so the "horse-race" aspect isn't there any more. But if the Treasury secretary had called America a nation of whiners, that would get front-page attention, no? Why does the Post downplay an attorney general's statement that America is a "nation of cowards"?

As Goldfarb wrote yesterday, it's more offensive to be called a coward, and an administration official's words carry more weight than a campaign adviser's.

Holder's statement is clearly controversial--after all, Democratic politicians aren't willing to defend it. And the remark is all the more offensive because it is plainly false--America has done a pretty good job discussing racial issues. Most people who have gone through school during the last 30 years--whether public or private, K-12 or college--have endured seemingly endless discussions on race.

Now, it's true that some topics, namely conservative criticism of racial preferences, are out of bounds. But I doubt that that's the kind of conversation Holder wants to encourage.