The second piece by Ms. Wahed is interesting. She reports on attending the recent CPAC, and finding that... well...
"I found myself singing along to 'God Bless the USA' with a hilariously rowdy group of college Republicans, having nuanced discussions about gun control and education policy with people from all walks of life, nodding my head in agreement with parts of Ben Shapiro’s speech, and coming away with a greater determination to burst ideological media bubbles."That sounds to me, like the way political discourse should be handled. Good natured, rowdy sometimes, but always with respect for the other side.
David Brooks, on the other hand....
"progressives are getting better and more aggressive at silencing dissenting behavior. All sorts of formerly legitimate opinions have now been deemed beyond the pale on elite campuses. Speakers have been disinvited and careers destroyed... There are a number of formerly popular ideas that can now end your career: the belief that men and women have inherent psychological differences, the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, opposition to affirmative action.""Silencing dissenting behavior". That's a political platform. Klavan uses the term "cultural fascism" and I have to agree with him. Whenever one tries to silence a dissenting voice, he runs up against the First Amendment. Perhaps Brooks has heard of that principle, that concept,, enshrined in our Bill of Rights. I may be out-voted, I may lose the debate, but I won't be silenced. Cultural Fascists hold no sway with me. Reasonable people can disagree, but trying to silence me (and those like me) is doomed to fail.
Brooks may have the New York Times as his amplifier, but I have PawPaw's House. My readers may not be as numerous as Brooks', but they're a lot smarter.
No comments:
Post a Comment