Why Listen to Michelle Malkin?
February 23, 2007
My very intelligent reader Daniel Kirkdorffer has pointed out that Michelle Malkin’s intent in reporting on last weekend’s politically motivated assault is more about tarring the anti-war movement with a broad brush than about reporting on the facts.
Which is exactly why I linked to her in my own outraged post about the attack. If the anti-war crowd allows the pro-war crowd to have the definitive voice of outrage on this outrageous behavior, then we allow them to use it as a wedge to drive us further apart.
Instead, we should treat Andrew Stone’s unforgivable behavior as an opportunity to unify with our political opponents. We must universally assert that while we may not agree, we condemn unprovoked attacks on one another’s physical safety and well-being. A basic nationwide agreement on standards of decency and proper behavior would go a long way in turning the tone of this discussion from partisan rancor to an honest, bi-partisan effort to look for real solutions to our country’s greatest problems.
So that’s why I’m listening to Malkin. That’s why I’m linking to Malkin. I don’t like her politics, but I respect her intelligence and I respect her ability to report the facts, even if they are laced with her bias.
You make a good point. It isn’t good to ignore the issues if they are valid, or allow them to be framed by others. What is hard is that we tend to favor nuance, and nuance doesn’t have as much weight as black or white, up or down type worlds.
Oh, and thanks for the compliment!
Daniel: Thanks!
And you’re right. Nuance does often get lost in the shuffle. That is exactly why we must continue to think about and articulat nuances. If we allow the shuffle to dictate our thinking, forcing us to ignore nuance, then we wind up like President Bush.