Accused of intolerance and ideological censorship, the members of the Leftist media have decided on their response: it’s not censorship or intolerance so long as we allow more Left-leaning people onto our editorial pages. That’s the argument being made simultaneously by the Democrats at New York magazine and Crooked Media.
First, New York magazine. Eric Levitz of that publication writes that we no longer need a plethora of conservative voices in the public square — the presence of Donald Trump has annihilated any such necessity. “The Liberal Media Can Have Ideological Diversity Without Conservatives,” Levitz preaches. Why?
Magazines like The Atlantic, and op-ed pages like the New York Times’, have long aimed to host a dialogue that represents the major intellectual currents on both sides of aisle — while upholding fundamental principles of civility, good faith, and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings (regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender). There was a tension in that mission statement before Trump: For decades, many of the American right’s most influential voices had rejected those supposedly shared values, and many of the conservative movement’s animating ideas were manifestly arational and racist. But before the triumph of the birther king — when the Republican Party’s standard-bearers still spoke in a language broadly similar to David Brooks’s — it was possible to frame the latter as a faithful translator of Red America’s thoughts and feelings.
But after Trump, Brooks had proved useless, as had all those conservatives who opposed Trump but couldn’t stop him. Thus, they should be counted out of the political debate. Instead, right-wingers should be banned outright — anyone who backed Trump ought to be counted out thanks to their obvious deplorability, and anyone who didn’t ought to be counted out thanks to their uselessness.
How convenient for the Left.
Instead, Levitz argues, arguments should be created between the Left and the even harder Left:
The far left has ideas that can be argued civilly, in good faith, without violating core liberal values. And those ideas are more responsive to the problems of our era than those of the NeverTrumpers.
So get rid of Kevin Williamson, and hire Jill Stein. The time has come!
Now, it’s fine to hire Jill Stein. But to proclaim that Kevin Williamson must go to make room for Stein is quite a contention.
Meanwhile, over at Crooked Media, Brian Beutler (formerly of The New Republic) says something similar: it’s time to stop looking for conservative columnists. Beutler declares that all conservatives reflect a “wellspring of right-wing contempt for modern culture, and for sources of neutral authority (science, law, journalism) that get in the way of conservative objectives.” The same, obviously, could be said of the Left that ignores biology when convenient (see Caitlyn Jenner and abortion), law when convenient (see the IRS scandal), and journalism when convenient (they just stopped performing it for eight years). But Beutler concludes that it’s conservatives who must be barred from the halls of discussion:
There is no Goldilocks conservative up for hire and there never will be … writers steeped in conservative-movement politics are poor fits at institutions that embrace the professional standards of mainstream journalism.
Even Bret Stephens must go.
And then those on the Left wonder why so many Americans see them as intolerant scolds dedicated to preventing honest discussion? Probably because they’re intolerant scolds dedicated to preventing honest discussion. There are those on the Right who engage in discussion with those with whom they disagree with on a regular basis. That’s a good thing. That’s what keeps the dialogue going. But the mainstream liberal press is pushing directly toward censorious Leftism. And that means the end of decent conversation, and with it, the future of a reason-based republic.