,
6 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
I was inundated yesterday with activists and journalists proclaiming that they now demand conditions-free release of all detained migrants and total border abolitionism. If that's your position, OK, but it's going to require more than emotionalistic slogans to defend it in public
The views of the Dem Party-aligned intelligentsia have shifted dramatically on this issue in a short period of time. That's why I asked what the operating principle was supposed to be. According to many, the principle is now that any border enforcement is inherently illegitimate
That's a fine principle to espouse but it should be defended in public without reflexively resorting to sloganeering, overheated moralistic posturing, and "shutting down" anyone who might have reservations around the margins. The online commentariat does not seem capable of this
Parsing rapid changes in elite opinion, which inevitably has a downstream effect on public policy, is a valid mode of journalistic inquiry and I'm going to continue doing it even if people insist on immediately ascribing bad faith, shouting "fascism," or getting bizarrely angry
I have a standing offer to engage on the substance with any online critic who believes I'm evil for whatever reason. (Not to "debate," to converse.) This offer is almost never taken up. Which is unfortunate, because it reflects a broader resistance to good faith engagement
No one is obligated to engage with me directly. However, in a pluralistic democracy do you do have to engage with people who might not share your principles. The way this issue is talked about, especially online, makes that increasingly impossible
