To put it simply, Kathleen Parker rubbed me the wrong way. I understand that opinion columns must be taken with a grain of salt but the triviality of Parker’s subjects overwhelmed me. I couldn’t find any importance attached to the appeal to men in Michelle Obama’s speech and there was nothing new or novel being expressed in her assessment of the “likability trap” of politics. The likability factor has been around for awhile and she writes about it as if she is condemning some major social problem that has only recently developed. And don’t get me started on the Notre Dame piece.
There were points at which I agreed with her but even then I found myself asking “Who cares?” Her voice is clear and her opinions are strong but they carry no weight. It was like hearing the ramblings of my abrasive friend at 2 a.m. Op-eds are a curious aspect of the news. There is a presence of voice and a blatant bias but the authors somehow maintain credibility as well as an audience. I do enjoy reading them every once in awhile. But Kathleen Parker didn’t connect with me.
As Sharon Grigsby points out in a comment about Parker, “She’s an independent thinker and her viewpoint is often so fresh and original, you can’t help but be moved even when you disagree”. I think Grigsby is right when she points out the unpredictability of Kathleen Parker. My opinion is that it hurts her credibility. There is no pattern, no support to her thoughts. They seem random, disjointed even. The points she makes can be clearly argued but she moves forward with a defiant march.
However, even with my disagreements on everything she writes I have to respect her. The provocative language and style does move me, even if it is in the wrong direction. She is humorous and entertaining and I get lost in the piece, trying to figure my way through her “interesting” rhetoric. And maybe that is the role of opinion pieces. To get the readers’ blood flowing during an otherwise uneventful and plain reading of the news. In a world of objectivity and professionalism Kathleen Parker seems to be a break from that monotony. In my mind it is comparable to the child who is kept inside all day by his overprotective, anxiety-ridden, germaphobic parents and his sudden cry of freedom when he escapes to the backyard to play in the mud. Maybe it’s dirty, maybe he gets hurt but it is important for him to experience that exposure.