If you’ve read my stuff for a while, or participated in one of my discussion threads, you’ll know that to me, one of the core values I promote is civility; we may disagree – even violently – but we acknowledge each other as human and worthwhile, and accept that we’re “in this together” – we’re all part of a civitas, or as defined from Latin (a) a community of citizens, a body-politic, a state, and (b) the condition of a citizen, citizenship, membership in the community. We’re all members of this political and social community, and we need to remember that.
That’s an important political value for me, and this morning I just had my face rubbed in why it’s an important social and intellectual one as well.
I may have grown a little bit today, and that’s my good news.I’m in New York for some family business, and this morning had breakfast with Adam Bellow…yes, that Adam Bellow. Through Roger, he’s come up with some genius ideas for Pajamas and the intersection of blogging and publishing. TG and I met him this morning to discuss them, which is a post for another day.
Today, as we wrapped up our discussion, I felt I had to apologize for the tone of my posts. When we’d arranged to meet, I’d suggested to the friends we’re staying with that I hoped he hadn’t actually read what I’d written about him. But after such a positive meeting, I felt I couldn’t avoid responsibility for what I’d written, and apologized for the tone of it.
Adam laughed, reached into his briefcase and pulled out a copy of the book he’d obviously meant to give me as a parting gift.
TG insisted that he sign it, which he did.
He suggested that the Atlantic article and oped which I’d lambasted didn’t fairly represent his premise, and suggested that I read the whole thing and see what I thought.
And lest you think I’m a whore for free books (why yes, I am) the real point to make is this:
When you disagree with people, it’s dangerous to do so in terms that – while seductively self-confident – really move to end debate, rather than encourage it. I don’t like it when people do that in discussions, I don’t like it when people do it on televisions or in opeds, and – in retrospect – I particularly don’t like it when I do it.
I may or may not change my views on nepotism when I’ve read the whole book. I have changed my views on what tone is acceptable to take in debating the issue, and I hope that my small reconciliation is something that leads all of you to think about your style of argument as well.
Pain au chocolat… is that anything like Bubke?
Good post for a Saturday – or any day.
Remember what you told me about being ethical…? I’m still following do as you do……….look where it’s landed you, in some pretty happy life situations I’d say. You did the right thing, as opposed to the easy thing, (well, not easy really, considering that you would have had guilt-but that’s another post), anyway, kudos!
I think we can seperate George Bush And Paris Hilton however
Insert as many more examples as you would like.
Rosevelt anyone ?
In a democracy, it very nature does inject quite come meritocratic forces, even the 2 term presidency inflicts this kind of pressure.
(the incentive for him to be the nepot, his second term as offspring of the first).
As for the rest, your too hard on yourself
Allow me to sound like im sucking up a little bit, but afford me the consideration that thats not what this is.
You can tell in debate when your opponent is being rational or not, you can tell if they are an honest broker of ideas, you can tell of they are in persuit of obhective truth and you can tell is their opinions are their honest assessment of the facts as they understand them.
And those that we see attempting to end debate as a tactic in itself display none of those things.
I cant tell the difference, if I assume most others can, I dont think thats what Dr Sanity calls “projection”:http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/05/why-grown-people-use-immature-defenses.html
As for the book, I would enjoy a terse understanding and opinion therof, after you have digested it.
Congratulations.
Wait– did you refer to Bellow as “pond scum?”
or, “worse than pond scum?”
No… perhaps it didn’t fit Bellow.
Unlike some people, who do in fact deserve the title. Regard for one’s opponent is a good thing, but not an unalloyed good. People can cross the line, and while the bar should be set high, when they do exceed the bar then honesty trumps politeness.
Marc, just read the announcement on Patterico. As a great fan, and fan of this wonderful blog, I just want to say how profoundly relieved I am that you will not be part of “Pajamas Media”. Johnson’s “LGF” is really quite dreadful and a easy target. There is no-debate, just single-minded Muslim bashing via cut and paste.
Congratulations for having the good sense to stay away. Please do let us know what your alternative venture will be!
David, my understanding is that this was a simple business divergence, with each party pursuing a different aspect of the original model.
I’ll also remind you that a number of the Winds team members and commenters who add so much to debate here came here via LGF’s “Lizardoids.” Which would seem to indicate that perhaps there’s more debate and thinking over there than you believe.
Though the inexorable power laws re: comments sections do apply – as they apply over at, say, Kevin Drum’s “Political Animal.”