Progressives Would Rather Silence Their Intellectual Opponents Than Simply Debate Them

This is a post for the Falkirk Center

Last week, Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton (R) penned an op-ed for The New York Times in which he argued in favor of using the troops to control the widespread unrest which have gripped several major American cities since hasthe death of George Floyd.

It was a simple, well-reasoned argument explaining that the Insurrection Act, which has not been invoked since the 1992 L.A. Riots, would be applicable in this case as well.

The op-ed contained no inflammatory language, no ideology. It focused on a simple point of debate (should the troops be deployed to contain the rioting?) and argued for the affirmative.

This is rhetoric 101. And in fact, if you had been on the fence about whether or not the troops should be used against American citizens in the case of widespread looting and rioting, you might very well have been convinced by the senator and Army veteran’s well-argued points.

The fact that this article could have changed one’s mind, however, is why I believe it was met with angry backlash from not just progressives at large, but progressive employees from the New York Times.


8 views0 comments