Google+
Close

The Corner

The one and only.

Speaking of Straw Men



Text  



I think Jonah has formulated the issue in a way in which I recognize it. He says: “You come from the perspective, I’m now quite certain, which believes there’s a great deal of heft and meaning to such phrases as ‘I may disagree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ I come from the perspective which says such statements are usually diversionary treacle, intended to distract from the substance of the issues at hand.” Let me begin by admitting, forthrightly, that I do believe that that phrase has heft and meaning. But by posing such a stark contrast between the (supposedly naïve) people who believe it has heft and meaning and the (supposedly clear-eyed) people who realize that it’s twaddle, Jonah is posing both a) a false choice and b) an excluded middle. In short: building a straw man. Because, in fact, while remaining 100 percent committed to free-speech principles and their importance to our national character and identity, I recognize that some people use the same rhetoric as-to use Jonah’s words-”diversionary treacle.” But . . . so what? Let’s say President Bush calls on Americans to be patriotic. Some lib jumps up and quotes the old line, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” What has he proven–about patriotism itself, or about Bush? Precisely nothing; it’s just name-calling. Patriotism remains a noble thing, though some abuse it; same goes for defending free speech. (And free speech does, of course, include the right to mock those we believe to have said remarkably silly things.)



Text  


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review