Read on Twitter
These kinds of arguments have become very popular among the Left, but are clearly wrong headed for a number of reasons 1) If you fire all conservative columnists from the NYT, it will cease to be NYT and become a Vox or Mother Jones. The power of NYT (1/n) https://mobile.twitter.com/NathanJRobinson/status/1272221829357330432
is that it is a mainstream paper of record that both conservatives and liberals read. This is why Trump attacks NYT and WaPo and not Vox or Slate. Because no one reading left wing publications are people who can potentially support him, therefore their criticism doesn't bother
him, while the criticism of more mainstream newspapers actually has the potential to harm his political prospects. If a newspaper fires all conservative columnists on the grounds that all conservatives are fundamentally illegitimate racists whose views are not fit to be published
it isn't a stretch to believe that conservatives would completely stop reading their paper. For a democracy to function, there has to be some sources of information all sides can trust as non partisan. Only then you can have political accountability, otherwise you have a
population living in two different realities. Not that it hasn't already happened to a large extent. One of the main reasons the US Congress is so incompetent, and common sense progressive reforms become so difficult to pass is that the US public has sorted itself into two neat
camps over the last four decades. The species of conservatives with liberal views in a host of subjects and vice versa has declined precipitously. The politicians of the two sides have to play to this new belief of their constituents, which makes consensus almost impossible to
achieve. And many bills, even representing modest changes, don't get passed. The sorting of American media into two camps has nearly overlapped (and caused) this sorting of American minds. To argue that the few mainstream newspapers who remain must also follow suit is not a good
argument. 2) In order to say something is beyond the pale, you have to first define the what the pale is (and it shouldnt just be all the stuff you agree with). People like Douthat & Brooks are anti Trump conservatives, who do not even air most of the views that powered the Trump
Presidency. If you can't even tolerate that, then your argument is basically that conservatism as a tradition is abhorrent and therefore any conservative argument is beyond the pale. Whatever else this position is, it certainly is an extreme position, or certainly used to be such
And it's only found among people of a certain age. I remember Noam Chomsky, who is pretty much as left wing as you can be, repudiating William.F. Buckley by saying he is not conservative at all but is extreme right wing. He added 'conservatism is an honourable' tradition but
Buckley is not that. There is always a difference between what is acceptable and what you agree with, which is something younger overzealous leftists forget. Every tradition has certain core insights, that, at the very least is useful to reflect upon & fine tune your beliefs.-end
