Boomers and Blind Spots

The New York Times Never-Trump Token Conservative (NYTNTTC) Bret Stephens made a fairly banal observation about the Dem candidates fighting over who was the most left of the most left wasn’t making fans of a lot of Trump-haters.

Here’s what: a party that makes too many Americans feel like strangers in their own country. A party that puts more of its faith, and invests most of its efforts, in them instead of us.

Oh noes. He wrote “them” and “us,” for which he was dutifully ripped to shreds. My pal Elie made a tasteful analogy.

On the one hand, there’s the minor detail that while we all need to eat to survive, we don’t need to vote for one party over the other, and we don’t need to vote at all. On the other hand, if you want to win an election, most people prefer more votes rather than fewer, and if too many people don’t like what you’re serving, then they won’t accept your barbecue invitation.

Elie’s point, which is an argument we’ve been having for years, is that the Dems, and Elie, are entitled to believe what they want to believe, unmolested by facts, logic or even reasonableness. My point is that they may well be, but guess who’s not coming to dinner?

Nick Kristof tries to bridge the gap in his NYT column.

As a liberal, I mostly write about conservative blind spots. But on the left as well as the right, we can get so caught up in our narratives that we lose perspective; nobody has a monopoly on truth.

Deep thoughts, except there isn’t just a left and right with competing narratives, which a guy who writes about “blind spots” would do well to remember from the opening of his column.

My daughter and I were tossing a football back and forth while also flinging around arguments about free speech, sexual assault, youthful intolerance and paternal insensitivity.

Football? In June? Right. This definitely happened.

We were discussing a Harvard law professor, Ronald Sullivan. He had been pushed out of his secondary job as head of Harvard College’s Winthrop House after he helped give Harvey Weinstein, accused of sexual assault, the legal representation every defendant is entitled to.

To me, as a progressive baby boomer, this was a violation of hard-won liberal values, a troubling example of a university monoculture nurturing liberal intolerance. Of course no professor should be penalized for accepting an unpopular client.

To my daughter, of course a house dean should not defend a notorious alleged rapist. As she saw it, any professor is welcome to represent any felon, but not while caring for undergraduates: How can a house leader support students traumatized by sexual assault when he is also defending someone accused of rape?

What Kristof means by “progressive baby boomer” is unclear. Maybe he’s referring to what was considered progressive a generation ago, but today his view would be plain-vanilla liberal, which to progressives of the moment is flagrant racism and sexism. For a guy who writes about blind spots, he seems remarkably myopic.

He might have used this game of catch to explain to his daughter the fallacy of her view. From a rhetorical perspective, posing a question doesn’t constitute a rational position, as it leaps over the logical gap between a lawyer’s duty and the irrational emotions. Or he could have explained that his position was grounded in principle, even if the outcome made someone feel unsafe. But he did neither.

It’s a difficult balance, requiring intellectual humility. Don’t tell my daughter, but she has a point: The well-being of sexual assault victims is clearly a value to embrace, even as we weigh it against the right of a law professor to take on a despised client.

Is this “intellectual humility” or an abdication of anything remotely reflecting thought? There’s nothing about Sullivan’s defending an accused that puts the “well-being of sexual assault victims” at risk, and there’s no one arguing that their well-being is insignificant. Kristof may claim the mantle of “progressive baby boomer,” but I reject the notion that we’re that incapable of thought that we conflate irrational emotions with principled reasoning. Even baby boomers can be dopes, experience and maturity notwithstanding.

And yet, even Kristof, slave that he may be to his football-catching daughter’s sad tears, sees a problem with the “no left is too left” candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination.

At a time when there is so much actual injustice around us — third-rate schools, mass incarceration, immigrants dehumanized — it’s bizarre to see student activists inflamed by sushi or valorizing a shoplifter. This is kneejerk liberalism that backfires and damages its own cause.

Even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut. I grant Elie and the Dems their right to serve up whatever vegan delight they prefer. Heck, it’s their barbecue and they get to pick their own menu. But while Bret Stephens may be criticized for questioning their culinary choices, not even Nick Kristof wants to dine at their teary-eyed trough. The Dems may be more than willing for Stephens not to come to dinner, but are they willing to lose Kristof as well?

Maybe there are enough folks out there hating Trump or loving being on the receiving end of everything for free that will push the Dems to their just desert of a glorious victory. My suspicion has long been that they’re seizing the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of running against a candidate so awful that America might be willing to vote for a candidate who promises to sacrifice the many for whoever cries the saddest tears.

But if the majority of Americans want to eat steak, and they can’t even get quiche, it could be very lonely at Elie’s barbecue. When even Kristof sees it, maybe the Dems should consider serving up a meal that people want to eat.

14 thoughts on “Boomers and Blind Spots

      1. Guitardave

        That was decadent.
        I’m outa here…gotta get some breakfast…I’m thinkin’ half a BBQ-chicken would work…

  1. B. McLeod

    Kristof doesn’t understand that it is neither “kneejerk” or “liberalism.” It’s Pavlov’s dogs, trained to salivate for the favored ideology. Anything and everything contrary to the ideology is an equal outrage. He can’t expect them to ignore the sushi.

    Of course it is a problem for the Democratic candidates. Not one of them has any confidence xhe or hesh can place in the pack by stepping a toe off the ideological line. So, it ultimately doesn’t matter who is nominated, the ideology is what’s for dinner.

    So, this is going to be the basic choice for voters again in 2020, and it comes down to whether voters will be more uncomfortable with the Democrats’ road to ideological totalitarianism or the Republicans’ Oaf of the Day. There won’t be a good choice, only a possibility of avoiding the more lasting damage.

    The nation is critically in need of a viable third party candidate in place of the fools who only seem to want to pack large numbers of clowns into a funny car.

  2. Jake

    “When even Kristof sees it, maybe the Dems should consider serving up a meal that people want to eat.”

    Speaking of blind spots, because I care about you and don’t want you to look daft, you should take fresh look at public opinion polls before you continue on as though you know what the people (outside the SJ group-think hug-box) want for dinner.

    1. SHG Post author

      You’re very kind to be so concerned for me, Jake, but I have looked and you really need to sit down as I have something to tell you and it’s going to make you sad.

  3. Rendall

    “… it was disappointing to see Cambridge University this year rescind a fellowship for Jordan Peterson, the Canadian best-selling author who says he will not use people’s preferred pronouns.”

    Jordan Peterson has repeatedly said he will use preferred pronouns when it’s polite to do so, but he opposed a law that would compel their use.

    The “blindspot” is to ignore primary sources of information in favor of derivative think pieces whose purpose is proper political instruction at the expense of actually informing their readers.

  4. Pedantic Grammar Police

    The Democrats have a great strategy. They will totally kick ass in New York and California. If illegals could vote, they would win Texas too.

Comments are closed.