The Atlantic hired, and then fired, Kevin Williamson – perhaps America’s best political journalist, and one of the best interviewees I’ve ever had in a decade and a half of doing the NARN.
Andrew McCarthy has thoughts on the subject.
My thoughts?
I’ve observed for years that one of the greatest side-effects of Urban Progressive Privilege is a complete inability to “debate” anyone who’s not part of their club – because they have no concept of cognitive dissonance when it comes to politics or any area of life touched by politics (and politics touches every area of their life.
Differ with an blind date’s politics? Ghost ’em!
Differ with a fellow student’s politics? Shame them!
Disagree with a co-workers’s politics? Slander, ostracize and try to destroy them!
It is difficult to have a discussion about liberalism any more. The word has been transformed into a derogatory label, albeit a label that means different things in different places. Liberal is too often used as an insult for people to have an intellectual discussion that does not degenerate into name-calling and other forms of overwrought drama. I welcome the discussion of ideas in principle, but I worry that this particular discussion will get bogged down in pre-conceived notions and partisanship.
Good thoughts from Andrew McCarthy. He does make a reference at the end, though, to the effect that a publication not wanting Williamson writing for it is like an NBA team not wanting LeBron James because it already had two good forwards. This analogy fails, though, because this isn’t about skill, it’s about doctrine.
Williamson’s exile is more akin to an NFL team not wanting a proven performer because he won’t stand for the national anthem.
How about we call it “progressivism,” Emery?
Of course it has that unfortunate connection to Wilson (who resegragated DC when he took office), and eugenics. But I guess that is just a coincidence.
The topic of “liberalism” really needs to be discussed. The liberals won’t do it.
I attended Minnesota public schools in the 1960s and 1970s. Liberal values were drilled into me. These values included equality under the law, opposition to racism, freedom of speech, and popular sovereignty. The current democrat party utterly rejects these values.
Having an intellectual discussion about liberalism is almost as hard as having an intellectual discussion about abortion.
The question is why you can’t have a coherent discussion about liberal goals, Emery, not that you can’t. In my experience, the reason you can’t have it goes from both sides, but the dominant factor is that there are some obvious tests of their politics that they simply won’t discuss. For example, in discussing the estate tax, you will see the sparks fly if you reference Stanley and Danko’s conclusion from The Millionaire Next Door that most rich people don’t inherit much of their money–that they are indeed self-made, and that the country has little to fear from those who inherit money.
In discussing abortion, likewise, the sparks will fly if you point out that most abortions are for convenience (fact), or that abortion wouldn’t survive in most cities without subsidies. There is a certain part of the left that is built off denial of reality, really.
Liberal is too often used as an insult for people to have an intellectual discussion
I agree, Emery, we shouldn’t use “liberal” to insult many on the left, because it’s not an accurate label. I prefer the term “leftist”. Classical liberals welcome the free exchange ideas, but that doesn’t seem to be what we see from schools, workplaces (which, unless the work is in the political sphere, should be a no-go subject, but I digress), places of worship, etc. We’ve got a lot of folks saying they want to have a discussion, but it seems they want to shut down opinions offensive to them. Behaviorally, today’s leftists have a lot in common with the Bolsheviks– they weren’t big on a wide variety of viewpoints either.