From a reader:
Your column of Nov. 8 calls Paul Krugman “a whining self-parody of a
hysterical liberal who lets feminine emotion and fear defeat reason and
fact in almost every column.” I was wondering, when you go on to
compare Maureen Dowd’s columns to vomit, do you think that perhaps
anyone might be justified in calling you a whining self-parody of a
hysterical conservative who lets feminine emotion and fear defeat
reason and fact in almost every column?
You criticize Democrats for calling Republicans ignorant. Is not your
entire column calling Democrats ignorant? Look at your language —
Democrats “fail to understand,” they “never actually learn about”
something, Maher is “mindless.” President Bush admits that he doesn’t
read newspapers, and more than 70 percent of his supporters believe
that Saddam Hussein supported al Qaeda. When Democrats call Republicans
ignorant, they’re not just being hysterical.
At times in my life I have been both radically conservative and
radically liberal. I now see extremely good ideas on both sides. I
value The Nation for challenging my conservative assumptions, and I
value The National Review for challenging my liberal assumptions.
Please, you can help the cause of conservatism so much more if you stop
whining and projecting hysteria onto others and root it out in
yourself. Appeal to my reason instead of venting your emotion.