Why object?

A teacher I had in high school whom I respected was dismayed to find me taking shots at opinion columnists whom he apparently agrees with and sees as supporting the moral and sensible viewpoint. We had an email exchange, a lot of it toxic, in which I tried to establish that the right-minded writers I chase after are doing good work. That didn’t take with my former teacher, though. “Why play the right-wing hack?” he ended up saying in effect. “Why not do something closer to the pursuit of truth?”

He’s right, in part. Fuming buys nothing and comes across as amateurish and uncultivated. You can complain and criticize, but eventually you have face bigger questions and say where it’s all headed. If you just fume, eventually you lose the ability to say what it’s all about.

Saying you should just pursue truth has its own problems, though. Such pursuits don’t occur in a vacuum—they happen in a particular setting that favors certain understandings, attitudes, and views over others. If you like the favored views and think they sum things up well then you can just go ahead. If you have objections, though, you’ll need a way to gracefully refrain from going with the flow.

Getting mad at Connie Schultz might not be the solution, ultimately. Rejecting things like multiculturalism, universalism, egalitarianism, and propositional nationhood is the solution to some degree and at some level, though. There are people who make that case intelligently and who deserve to have their arguments given some due. Instead they are kept out of the public view.