Exactly this. We need to think about the level of privilege that it takes to publish (or defend the publication of) a piece like this, a privilege grounded in the smug certainty (one blind to the history of fascism) that if the dangerous course of action advocated comes to pass neither the senior editors of the paper nor its target audience* will be affected by it. It’s an incredibly foolish and irresponsible stance to take, especially by people who should know better.
One of the most disingenuous parts of James Bennet’s explanation is this statement:
Times Opinion owes it to our readers to show them counter-arguments, particularly those made by people in a position to set policy.
James, you’ve run your market demographics, and I’ve seen the paper’s ads over the years. Don’t pretend that your readers aren’t already long aware of those “counter-arguments” (to what? human decency? rule of Constitutional law?), and don’t pretend that many of those readers also set this country’s political and economic policies themselves in ways large and small. This isn’t just giving space to hand-wringing and concern-tr0lling clowns like Bobo and Cardinal Douthat to provide an unconvincing facade of “balance”. Asking us to consider the views and opinions of a known authoritarian and racist is virtue-signalling that will have dangerous consequences – maybe even for you.
[* disclaimer: I am a member of that target audience, but one who understands that doorman buildings and neighbourhoods that the police actually “protect and defend” won’t protect me if the enablement of right-wing populists results in a further consolidation of their power and a further degradation of liberal democracy]
