Tweet
Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
To set the scene, I am going to post something from Ricochet.com, a website I am a member of, and even if you don’t want to sign up – it is well worth your time. To get right to the point, Crow's Nest writes the following:
Well said, in my judgment.
In response Claire Berlinski (look her up, if you want) demands, “I now challenge someone on Ricochet sympathetically to describe the Progressive case. Just as an act of intellectual discipline. Only after really giving it your best go do you get to point out where it goes awry. In the length of an average New York Times column.”
Can members of Shockernet rise to this challenge? And no peeking – the comments in the link are off limits. You see everything you need to know, right here.
Keep in mind – this is important intellectually – can you make a compelling argument on behalf of an intellectual adversary? If you cannot – you won’t win the exchange.
PS. You liberals, progressives or whatever – please don’t respond.
To set the scene, I am going to post something from Ricochet.com, a website I am a member of, and even if you don’t want to sign up – it is well worth your time. To get right to the point, Crow's Nest writes the following:
New York Times columnist Joe Nocera, who called Tea Partiers “terrorists” because of their stern negotiating tactics during the debt ceiling debate, has since written an article to recant his previous characterization. Nocera writes:
That anger reached its apex on Tuesday, when I wrote a column comparing the Tea Party Republicans to terrorists. The words I chose were intemperate and offensive to many, and I’ve been roundly criticized. I was a hypocrite, the critics said, for using such language when on other occasions I’ve called for a more civil politics. In the cool light of day, I agree with them. I apologize.
Well, that’s refreshing. First off, thanks, Joe, for writing this column, acting like an adult, and publicly admitting your mistake. Too many public figures use ridiculous language to demonize their opponents and refuse to take it back.But, Joe, what contributes to this toxic environment you detest so much isn't that you said this. The problem is that you think it.
Before someone accuses me (because this is a public letter and all) of being the thought police, give me a chance to explain. Hang with me for the next few paragraphs.
It isn’t that you called us terrorists that frustrates us, Joe. That, instead, was a rare moment of candor—however heated. Such rhetoric has become par for the course over the past couple generations, and conservatives have largely found ourselves grudgingly resigned to the fact that we’re going to be wildly mischaracterized by the media at every opportunity.
But it isn’t the “name calling”, as you call it, that irks us most. It’s that, in smug self-satisfaction, you too often refuse to give serious arguments the attention they deserve, or respectfully treat thinking that challenges the status quo. Let me say also that many media figures on the right are plenty guilty of exactly the same thing and have refused to tone down their more inflammatory mischaracterizations. We’ve had debates about this before on Ricochet (a Code of Conduct mutually reinforced helps!), but I’ll say it again in this context for maximum possible penetration: statements that accuse Democrats of being subversive Communist sleeper agents who are unpatriotic and want to destroy America are over the line.
So, we both profess to want a more civil discourse. Let me define what I think that means. When I talk about civil discourse, its not that I want some kind of mushy-headed, peace on earth, lovey-dovey mutual admiration society that proceeds in the dulcet tones of a bad NPR parody and rules out strongly-voiced, principled disagreement.
Instead, those of us who are partisans of the true liberal education, and therefore of enlightened disagreement, know that the first pre-requisite for civil discourse is sympathy. Not only fellow-feeling for one’s fellow citizens that gives rise to the attitude that they act out of genuine motives for what they perceive (rightly or wrongly) to be the common good, but also sympathy for an argument opposed to your own. The sympathy that allows you to take an idea seriously enough to hold it in your mind long enough to grapple with its premises and conclusions rather than haughtily dismissing it out of hand.
This conception of civil discourse doesn’t preclude the possibility of disagreement at the highest level, or of passionately standing for one’s own principles. Rather, it encourages you to understand your enemy, before offering a devastating critique. Nor does this conception fail to recognize that political leaders will act out of partisan motives or behave cynically. It rather suggests we should call a spade a spade when we see it—on both sides.
Should you adopt my vision of a more civil discourse, it would keep you sober enough to know that the millions of Americans who disagree with the contradictions at the heart of the Progressive vision aren’t crazed fanatics. Nor are those who disagree with them in part or in toto disloyal members of a secret alliance bent on the destruction of the country. Instead, they are folks that deserve to have their concerns taken seriously because they are serious citizens, and their arguments--even when badly stated--stem from a philosophy that is profoundly serious.
So, Joe (et al.), since I take you to be true to your word and believe you feel contrite, here is my recommendation for penance. Use some space in your next column to sympathetically describe the thinking that underlies the Tea Party critique, before you go on to point out where you think it goes awry.
That anger reached its apex on Tuesday, when I wrote a column comparing the Tea Party Republicans to terrorists. The words I chose were intemperate and offensive to many, and I’ve been roundly criticized. I was a hypocrite, the critics said, for using such language when on other occasions I’ve called for a more civil politics. In the cool light of day, I agree with them. I apologize.
Well, that’s refreshing. First off, thanks, Joe, for writing this column, acting like an adult, and publicly admitting your mistake. Too many public figures use ridiculous language to demonize their opponents and refuse to take it back.But, Joe, what contributes to this toxic environment you detest so much isn't that you said this. The problem is that you think it.
Before someone accuses me (because this is a public letter and all) of being the thought police, give me a chance to explain. Hang with me for the next few paragraphs.
It isn’t that you called us terrorists that frustrates us, Joe. That, instead, was a rare moment of candor—however heated. Such rhetoric has become par for the course over the past couple generations, and conservatives have largely found ourselves grudgingly resigned to the fact that we’re going to be wildly mischaracterized by the media at every opportunity.
But it isn’t the “name calling”, as you call it, that irks us most. It’s that, in smug self-satisfaction, you too often refuse to give serious arguments the attention they deserve, or respectfully treat thinking that challenges the status quo. Let me say also that many media figures on the right are plenty guilty of exactly the same thing and have refused to tone down their more inflammatory mischaracterizations. We’ve had debates about this before on Ricochet (a Code of Conduct mutually reinforced helps!), but I’ll say it again in this context for maximum possible penetration: statements that accuse Democrats of being subversive Communist sleeper agents who are unpatriotic and want to destroy America are over the line.
So, we both profess to want a more civil discourse. Let me define what I think that means. When I talk about civil discourse, its not that I want some kind of mushy-headed, peace on earth, lovey-dovey mutual admiration society that proceeds in the dulcet tones of a bad NPR parody and rules out strongly-voiced, principled disagreement.
Instead, those of us who are partisans of the true liberal education, and therefore of enlightened disagreement, know that the first pre-requisite for civil discourse is sympathy. Not only fellow-feeling for one’s fellow citizens that gives rise to the attitude that they act out of genuine motives for what they perceive (rightly or wrongly) to be the common good, but also sympathy for an argument opposed to your own. The sympathy that allows you to take an idea seriously enough to hold it in your mind long enough to grapple with its premises and conclusions rather than haughtily dismissing it out of hand.
This conception of civil discourse doesn’t preclude the possibility of disagreement at the highest level, or of passionately standing for one’s own principles. Rather, it encourages you to understand your enemy, before offering a devastating critique. Nor does this conception fail to recognize that political leaders will act out of partisan motives or behave cynically. It rather suggests we should call a spade a spade when we see it—on both sides.
Should you adopt my vision of a more civil discourse, it would keep you sober enough to know that the millions of Americans who disagree with the contradictions at the heart of the Progressive vision aren’t crazed fanatics. Nor are those who disagree with them in part or in toto disloyal members of a secret alliance bent on the destruction of the country. Instead, they are folks that deserve to have their concerns taken seriously because they are serious citizens, and their arguments--even when badly stated--stem from a philosophy that is profoundly serious.
So, Joe (et al.), since I take you to be true to your word and believe you feel contrite, here is my recommendation for penance. Use some space in your next column to sympathetically describe the thinking that underlies the Tea Party critique, before you go on to point out where you think it goes awry.
In response Claire Berlinski (look her up, if you want) demands, “I now challenge someone on Ricochet sympathetically to describe the Progressive case. Just as an act of intellectual discipline. Only after really giving it your best go do you get to point out where it goes awry. In the length of an average New York Times column.”
Can members of Shockernet rise to this challenge? And no peeking – the comments in the link are off limits. You see everything you need to know, right here.
Keep in mind – this is important intellectually – can you make a compelling argument on behalf of an intellectual adversary? If you cannot – you won’t win the exchange.
PS. You liberals, progressives or whatever – please don’t respond.
Comment