oldenGoldenDecoy's picture

    Nine years later, who looks more correct?

    Meet Jeffrey Sachs

    Lecturer at Acadia University. Judicial politics, authoritarianism, Islamic law. Specializing in Sudan/Egypt. Occasionally free speech on campus issues as well.

    Wolfville, Nova Scotia


    Jeffrey Sachs is a lecturer in political science and history, where he specializes in Middle Eastern law and politics. He has a PhD in Islamic Studies from McGill University. His commentary on campus politics and free speech, which began as a viral Twitter thread, has been published in The Washington Post.




    Here's Jeffrey's thought provoking thread where
    he's responding to an article in National Review by:

    Senior Writer, National Review. Visiting Fellow for the Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies division at AEI.


    This piece, from @michaelbd, is something every liberal should read. It's smart. But I don't think MBD quite captures here the liberal position, nor why his argument is likely to be so poorly received on the Left.
    So I'll try to explain.
    6:55 AM · Dec 5, 2019·
    For a certain type of liberal or Leftist, the response to MBD's piece is, essentially, "We told you so." It's considered impolite and unproductive to say that, but it's what a lot of libs think, and not unreasonably so.
    They'll go on: "For many long years now, through Gingrich and DeLay and Palin, we warned you about the GOP's assault on procedural, ideological, and rhetorical norms. How while conservatism would be the first to be corrupted, American government would surely be the second.
    We told you all along that you were careening towards disaster. Of asymmetric polarization. That you were out of control. "Let's just say it," proclaimed even the most sober and mainstream of voices. "Republicans are the problem."


    We lived through the rise of the Freedom Caucus. Government shutdowns. The Benghazi hearings. Birtherism. The whitey tape. Scott DesJarlais and Louie Gohmert and Tom Tancredo and YEARS of unchallenged, uncriticized Steve King. We tried to tell you. God knows we tried.
    But of course you didn't listen. In retrospect, 2010 was your last chance to set things right. The Tea Party, we warned, was motivated by racial extremism. You shamed us for playing the Race Card, insisting that it was about bank bailouts and an earnest concern over the debt.
    Nine years later, who looks more correct?
    Through it all, you ignored those you could ignore, dismissed those you could dismiss, and attacked anybody else left standing. All the while, you happily racked up the policy wins. Then came Trump, but not just Trump. Also the Body Snatchers.
    "Whatever happened to Michelle Malkin?" you asked plaintively. "She used to be so normal." No, she wasn't.
    And do I even have to say anything about this?
    So now it's 2019 and you're wondering why we won't offer some olive branch, some concession to the conservative movement in order to hasten Trump's defeat. In other words, you're asking why we won't adopt a policy that we believe will hurt people.
    Is it really so hard to understand? We warned you for years that you were destroying your party, undermining conservatism, and putting the country at risk. Time has proven us right, and your response is...to ask for a bailout.
    Yes, you are! You're like those bankers, reminding us that it's for the good of the country, and anyway you've totally changed. But have you?
    I mean, suppose we agree, in the name of our shared interest in defeating Trump and rescuing the sane wing of the GOP, to adopt policies that we *sincerely believe* will hurt people. What's to guarantee that in a few years we won't be right back in this position?
    Especially when SO MANY of you still insist that there's no real problem to speak of? And you welcome these people onto the pages of your most prestigious publications. It's 2010 all over again!
    Because this isn't just a Trump problem. The rot goes much deeper, but you seem disturbingly uninterested in doing anything about it. On the contrary, you're actively cheering it on.
    And on.



    And on.
    So forgive us if we are skeptical about throwing in with the sane remnants of the GOP. Forgive us if we doubt that you have really changed. That your calls for a united front strike us, at this late hour, as a bit too convenient."
    That's the complaint. You may not agree with it. Hell, I only agree with about 75% myself. It's not entirely fair (some on the Right have been pushing back against these problems), but I *do* think that it's *mostly* fair. Much fairer than most conservatives are ready to admit.
    And to those conservatives: Even if you don't agree with our complaint, until you can see that we have a legitimate case, you're never going to understand why MBD's argument -- however sincere, however thoughtful -- falls on deaf ears.
    Why can't we meet you half way? Why, if we're so alarmed by Trump, won't we strike some sort of compromise, some parlay between warring factions? A ceasefire, a pause, a Christmas Truce? Simple. Because we're terrified of being played for chumps. And again: not unreasonably so.






    Latest Comments