Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The “Dangers of Diversity of Thought”
In the Jewish press today there’s a debate brewing about the direction of the opinion page of one of the country’s leading Jewish papers, the Jewish Daily Forward. Big old disclaimer: I am officially a columnist there, though I rarely contribute these days because my plate has been full with other obligations. I also hate almost everything the paper runs. And yet, after I write this post, I’ll be writing a column for the Forward this morning/afternoon.
Contributor Nylah Burton writes in the pages of the Jewish Current about her concerns with the direction of the Forward’s opinion pages,
THE FORWARDis a treasured institution in Jewish media. Founded in 1897 as a Yiddish language socialist newspaper, in its English incarnation it has at times sought to speak for the entire Jewish community. This is the mandate claimed by the Forward’s online opinion editor, Batya Ungar-Sargon, who took up the post in 2017: to publish the full range of Jewish opinion, from far-left perspectives to far-right perspectives, in the name of intellectual debate and diversity.
In practice, however, that approach has alienated multiple writers of color, myself included, who no longer feel that the Forward is a suitable home for our work. When this “bothsidesism” spilled over into mainstream politics this past February, with Ungar-Sargon personally fanning the flames of a dangerous situation in an interaction with Rep. Ilhan Omar, many of us felt it was a defining moment. The Forward’s commitment to representing all sides, including right-wing opinions, is neither new nor unique to the Forward. But in the context of Ungar-Sargon’s recent behavior, the costs of writing for the Forward have come to outweigh the benefits for many of its contributors, especially people of color.
To be clear, my husband Seth and I consider Batya a friend, despite the fact that we probably could not find any major issue we agree on.
The worst part is how she takes advantage of the moral mismatch. Batya is a good person, and she is a scumbag, so she knows Batya won’t retaliate. At least it’s a warning to editors they’d have to be psychotic to publish this deceitful coward.
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) May 16, 2019
We aren’t the only ones. Another friend and sometimes-Forward contributor Eli Steinberg wrote of Batya on Twitter today,
I've contributed to the @jdforward opinion section a time or two, and I think @bungarsargon is doing a great job. The fact that she mostly runs pieces I entirely disagree with, yet runs my opinion in the same space, is the page's strength, not weakness.
— The Meturgeman (@DraftRyan2016) May 16, 2019
This debate over this particular editor and opinion page is part of a wider issue I’ve encountered as a freelance writer. If I had a nickel for every time someone told me to stop writing for a publication because of something that someone else wrote, well, I’d have more money than I make as a freelance writer, that’s for sure. I’ve been told by liberals and conservatives alike that I shouldn’t write for every single outlet I’ve ever written for, I’ve even been told by Jews not to write for LDS Living for goodness sake!
This is an insidious idea for a writer to entertain; that the opinion page of a certain publication has to not only contain only ideas that they agree with, but that the editor, who has always been fair and open, has to hold the same ideas as well. The purpose of an opinion page is to spark debate; why would a writer only want a small subset of “acceptable” ideas published?
As a writer, I write conservative ideas for liberal publications and more “liberal” takes for conservative ones for one reason: to expose audiences to ideas outside of their bubbles and comfort zones. It would be a shame for one of the most open pages in the Jewish journalism world to be hampered by the very people who claim to care about the free exchange of ideas and thought.
Published in Journalism
I guess I am a old fart, cuzz I remember when “liberals” were insistent on inclusivity of all points of view. My, how things have changed. I guess the “left”, or even the Democrats are no longer liberal but now just function as some adjunct of some Stalinist directive from the Progressive powers that be from above.
I also remember the quaint formerly radically liberal bumper sticker meme “Challenge Authority” and the more recent ones: “Speaking Truth to Power”. Best not try to speak truth to the Progressive Power too loudly or “challenge” their authority these days or one of their Stalinest thugs may try to take you out.
One explanation is that “‘liberals’ were insistent on inclusivity of all points of view” because they, immaculately conceived without human frailties and biases, expected to be always right and to win all the arguments. When they started losing arguments, their enthusiasm for letting all sides be heard waned.
Of course, some self-styled liberals were covert authoritarians all along, “Stalinist” wolves in liberal sheep‘s clothing. In academia, the real liberals were often shocked when the Stalinist progressives dropped the disguise, and the liberals suddenly found themselves outvoted and marginalized.
Indeed. Seems rather “illiberal ” of them.
Bethany, there are two other things that are very disturbing about this situation, beyond the issue of disassociation with publications that print opposing viewpoints:
I presume that Burton would not make such ludicrous arguments if: (1) she didn’t find them convincing, and (2) some readers didn’t find them convincing. I’m having trouble coming up with a description for Burton, and such readers, other than “idiots.”
Does anyone have a thesaurus handy? “Cognitively challenged,” perhaps? Out of their minds? Crazy? Ten fries short of a happy meal? Nuts?
Now that “conservatism” has been redefined as whatever it is Donald Trump is, and the Democrats are moving into “progressivism”, I say it’s past time to reclaim the word “liberal” as “somebody who believes in freedoms” – freedom of speech, freedom of trade, freedom of action, freedom of religion, freedom from government interference. You know, what the word used to mean before it got redefined as a synonym for “leftist”.
I’m so old I was a liberal back when we believed in freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, tolerance, and equal protection under the law! I still do, so I can no longer be a liberal.
I think this explains alot.
I’m a geezer myself and one of the principles that attracted me to the Left as a young man was its claim to “open mindedness.” Over the years I’ve come to learn that it wasn’t really a principle as much as it was a sophisticated ploy to get people to pay more attention to them.
It’s not bold let alone radical to want to present the various sides of an issue. Ultimately what separates the Left from the right is simply a different hierarchy of priorities because we all pretty much still want the same things … just in different order.
I can’t help but suspect there’s some hidden antagonist here intentionally trying to prey on identity to create division but that hidden antagonist might well be the human unconscious translated through increasing emotional frailty.
I recommend reading Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut. It’s only six pages and it shows that people really do want different things.
I continue to be surprised at the number of excuses the Left gives for banning the speech of those they don’t like: death threats, taken out of context, Islamaphobia. The list keeps growing. As much as I despise much of what comes out of the Left, I tolerate it; free speech is free speech.
It’s funny you mention that because I’ve been referencing that story quite a bit lately with a special focus on Diana Moon Glampers. There’s even a nice video short on youtube.
But the tyranny of the mediocre is still the craven execution of a common desire: To live a life of dignity. There are a host of potential social psychoses that can pervert normal human expression and they often end in disaster. No doubt we’re in a similar era as portrayed in Harrison Bergeron, the State destroys human dignity to preserve human dignity … and that just can’t end well.
I’m on board with this. For the last few years I have been trying to avoid using the word “liberal” when what I really mean is “leftist” or “progressive.”