Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
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.
- Comment (47)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
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. Exactly Crow's Nest. Nice post.
This brought to mind the Socratic methods of law school. After standing and breaking down a case in front of the class, the professor would usually call on someone else to refute, asking "Who disagrees with Mr Pilgrim?"
But you always had to be prepared for the question, at the end of your recitation: "Tell me why you're wrong."
This wasn't an indication that the professor thought you were wrong, it was training to emphasize that you can't effectively present your own argument unless you understand the opposing position as well as an adherent of that position might. (And, of course, a lawyer can make a lot more money if he/she can take either side of a case with equal aplomb)
Edited on Aug 7, 2011 at 4:13amRe: Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
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.
Takers?
May '10
Re: Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
Claire Berlinski, Ed.: 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.
Takers? · Aug 7 at 4:38am
I'm well past that. I used to earnestly explain about the efficiency of the market and the perils of unintended consequences. Then I woke up and realized this is all about nothing but power, position, and the enrichment of the Political Class. The consequences are frankly intended.
Jul '11
Re: Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
Excellent post, Crow's Nest. Perhaps someone should send a copy to the honorable John Kerry after his chiding to the media that they have a responsibility to not cover or present ideas promoted by the Tea Party because they are "absurd notions". Video at the link. It's a perfect example of Crow's Nest's point: Kerry's using perfectly measured tones, but the thinking behind them is appallingly closed-minded and arrogant.
Edited on Aug 7, 2011 at 6:03amSep '10
Re: Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
Claire - The act of intellectual discipline has been beautifully performed in book length by Prof. Thomas Sowell in "A Conflict of Visions." Therein he dispassionately describes the constrained (tragic) view of human nature and the unconstrained (humans can be perfected, God-like) view. This is a scholarly, even-handed rendering and tells clearly, inter alia, why conservatives are regularly subjected to ad hominem attacks by self-elected elites with a progressive (unconstrained) view. It is one of the most important books I have ever read.
Also, clarifying:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. ... those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis
Edited on Aug 7, 2011 at 5:36amJul '10
Re: Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
Prof. Sowell writes much of great insight. It is factual, dispassionate, and true to reality.
If there is a brief answer to Claire's comment, it is that "progressives" start with the premise that it is too bad some people don't have the ability to be at the top of the social scale - then come to the disconnect that government can right this "wrong" when in fact it is merely an observation. Once you get to there, you have no end of what you can demand, nor of what trickery you will use to get it. So now, for example, we get the discussion that there is a huge disparity between the "defined poor" and the rich. BUT the "defined poor" don't have counted ANY of the multitude of things they get for free from the government. If this was, indeed counted, they would no longer be the "defined poor". But then there would be no one to "save".
Feb '11
Re: Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
Claire Berlinski, Ed.: 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.
Takers? · Aug 7 at 4:38am
The progressive case for what? There are many issues, and only 200 words permitted... Are you asking us to name a case, and then make it for a progressive? Or specifically the progressive case contra the Tea Party?
Edited on Aug 7, 2011 at 5:48amFeb '11
Re: Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
mesquito
I'm well past that... The consequences are frankly intended. · Aug 7 at 4:49am
I'm with mesquito on that and have been there all along. It is all intended. The foreign as well as the domestic. (The real Obamites pretty openly acknowledge the foreigh.)
"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."
But surely we are allowed to say "I have heard this before and considered it. You say nothing new and I dismiss it out of hand." With or without the "haughtily."
Edited on Aug 7, 2011 at 5:58amMay '10
Re: Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
Great post, Crow's Nest. Just a small caveat, to this point:
Crow's Nest
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.
To accuse a Dem of being a Communist sleeper agent isn't necessarily uncivil. There are such things, after all. (Alger Hiss, anyone?)
Such accusations go over the line and beyond the pale of civil discourse only when they are hurled without supporting evidence. Lefty politicians and media figures routinely accuse Tea Partiers of extremism, racism, and latent violence not only without offering evidence, but in the face of scads of evidence to the contrary. That's what makes them so offensive.
Edited on Aug 7, 2011 at 6:01amJun '11
Re: Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
Crow's Nest
.
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.
It's true that not everyone on the left is a Communist. It is equally true that a significant portion of those on the left believe America is a locus of evil and should be "radically transformed". To many of us on the right, radical transformation vs. destruction is a distinction without a difference. So if "civil discourse" means not mentioning that there are Americans who wish to destroy America, then I say civil discourse, for the right, is tantamount to surrender.
Mar '11
Re: Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
Claire: Since my post sparked the challenge, I feel obligated to take it up at some point in the near future. Fair is fair.
In the meantime, since I don't have time this moment to to offer a defense of the Progressive perspective (on anything), I will link to this reading list over at Five Books which offers a number of books that (while strongly disagreeing with the authors) are of high quality.
Katievs: Agreed with you on Alger Hiss. There are some cases in which that charge is correct (truth being an absolute defense in libel cases), but I hear it get whipped around a bit too often for my liking.
May '10
Re: Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
Fair enough. My main concern is that we not establish parameters for civil discourse that prescind from the question of truth and reality.
As one-eyed Jack says above, Alger Hiss may have been a particularly egregious case, but wasn't some sort of freak exception. Anti-Americanism is deeply rooted and wide-spread on the left. We shouldn't refrain from saying so if we believe it's true. But, if we're serious about civil discourse, we should be prepared to make our case.
Re: Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
Just meditating on the questions raised by katievs and Crow's Nest. Sometimes the imperatives of being civil and being truthful are in conflict. Anyone care to try to define which is the higher moral obligation and when?
Edited on Aug 7, 2011 at 6:45amMay '10
Re: Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
Let me add this:
The main reason the liberal charges against the Tea Party are so offensive is that they are completely false. Nor do those who make them (including those in major media news outlets and elected officials in Congress) seem to feel any responsibility to investigate their veracity before they make them public. Nor do they feel the need to back up the accusations with evidence.
The big rhetorical bomb throwers on the right, on the other hand (who are, mainly, opinion-makers, not news-casters or leading politicians) do, generally speaking, back up their claims and theories with real evidence.
We should beware making a moral equivalence based merely on the harshness of the rhetoric. Everything depends on the rhetoric's relation to reality.
May '10
Re: Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
Claire Berlinski, Ed.: Just meditating on the questions raised by katievs and Crow's Nest. Sometimes the imperatives of being civil and being truthful are in conflict. Anyone care to try to define which is the higher moral obligation and when? · Aug 7 at 6:44am
Edited on Aug 07 at 06:45 am
The obligation to be truthful is absolute. The obligation to be civil is not.
But the two are in conflict less often than is generally supposed, I think. A person committed to both becomes skillful at tempering his rhetoric to be sure that it reflects what he can really defend. The commitment to both induces a natural modesty and respect that are almost the key notes of civility, no?
Edited on Aug 7, 2011 at 6:55amJun '10
Re: Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
Here goes: Society is best organized on principles of liberté, égalité, fraternité. Liberty should not mean libertarianism, with its excess emphasis on individualism, but maximizing the liberty of all members of the society by removing economic restraints such as crass concerns for food and shelter.
Equality, legal and social, is best achieved by insuring that outcomes are more equal since opportunity smiles only on the fortunate. Conservatives are simply selfish, if not evil, to tolerate such disparites of wealth. Material success is really more based on the opportunities made available by the society than individual merit. Give Warran Buffet $5K and send him to Zaire - see how long it takes for him to become a billionaire there. No person of conscience can live like a Hollywood movie star when actual hunger exists anywhere in the world. (Oops - strike that last)
All of us are in this together. Even secularists understand Christ's intent "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." Conservatives prattle on about their little charites, but selfishly resist the marshalling of the public resources that could make a real difference in people's lives
Mar '11
Re: Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
"Sometimes the imperatives of being civil and being truthful are in conflict"
I completely agree with Claire on this, and could easily have written a defense of ferocious incivility in the face of despotism or tyranny. An author whom I respect once wrote something to the effect that a political science which fails to recognize tyranny as what it is is no science (in the sense of knowledge) whatsoever. My case in point would be Churchill's warlike rhetoric toward Germany in the years leading up to the Second World War. One must be capable of incivility (and more) in the face of such enemies.
The words "civil", "citizen" and "civic" are etymologically related and they presume something anterior to themselves--a common society and broad set of mores.
My call for civil discourse must not be read as a call to obfuscate unpleasant truths so that "everybody just gets along" in the face of real danger.
But most American progressives are not Alger Hiss, and most of them would transform America to look more like France or Sweden. Those nations, having far less liberty than ours, are not desirable models to me. But they aren't Soviet Russia, either.
Re: Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
Crow's Nest: "Sometimes the imperatives of being civil and being truthful are in conflict"
I completely agree with Claire on this, and could easily have written a defense of ferocious incivility in the face of despotism or tyranny. An author whom I respect once wrote something to the effect that a political science which fails to recognize tyranny as what it is is no science (in the sense of knowledge) whatsoever. My case in point would be Churchill's warlike rhetoric toward Germany in the years leading up to the Second World War. One must be capable of incivility (and more) in the face of such enemies.
You mentioned Churchill before I hit "post." I'd also note--just to suggest that this is complicated--that Churchill's rhetoric did not reflect epistemological modesty and a commitment to truth. "We will never surrender." Important, historic words. The right words. In truth, if Germany had developed the Bomb before the Allies, Britain would have surrendered. All he could have defended--modestly--was the proposition, "We probably won't surrender."
Edited on Aug 7, 2011 at 7:12amMay '10
Re: Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
And yet, there is a convincing (to me) case that the natural end of the socialism France and Sweden is Soviet Russia.
Cardinal Newman--one of the great English writers and polemicists in history, who was scrupulously both courteous and truthful--believed that there was, finally, only Atheism or Catholicism. Every Protestant was on his way to one or the other. That's how he saw it. And he made his case.
Similarly, a person can believe that there is, ultimately, no sustainable middle ground between freedom and tyranny.
Re: Act of Contrition(?) – Or, A Note to Joe Nocera (et al.)
Yes, but that is different from averring that this is someone's desired end.