Today’s Times has two blogs of varying importance but the same kicker: why can’t people who disagree about gosh darn politics just get along? The first is bad and embarrassing, and written by college students, so. But this shit, which basically blames political disagreements on hot-blooded women, ran in America’s most respected publication:
We go to a men’s college, so not surprisingly, the demographic tends to be a little homogeneous. Maybe we can more easily afford to believe that one’s political impulses and passions are less important than the ability to shake the hand of someone who disagrees with you.
This is so obviously untrue: your political passion against a politician you hate is much more important than, uh, the ability to mutually squeeze each other and make brief eye contact. The authors, the chairs of the College Republicans and Young Democrats at Hampden-Sydney, go on to say that: “if our generation can combine raw passion with more old-fashioned ideals about politeness, we can transform disparate — yet potentially complementary — ideas into meaningful change.”
I went to an all-boys high school, so I know the temptation to think that everyone who you hang out with has something to offer to the world. Listen up, boys: they do not. The ideas that liberals and conservatives have are precisely disparate because they are not potentially complementary. The Future Smarmers Of America who wrote this trash are proud that “We don’t resort to calling one another America-hating liberals or racist Republicans.” Calling Republicans racist is fine, and hating America is better. Skip the handshakes.
The second is a much more interesting, deeply reported story that somehow ends up in the same place. Howard County, Maryland, was considering legislation to establish itself as a sanctuary for undocumented immigrants. It seemed like an easy win—according to the Times, the county is two-thirds Democratic and one-fifth foreign-born. But the legislation, and a similar bill in the Maryland Senate, was defeated thanks in part to hardcore opposition from people who had immigrated to the U.S. legally.
The Times interviewed four of those opponents, who basically had reactionary takes on illegal immigration despite their otherwise milquetoast liberal politics. A sampling:
“Just because you are a productive member of society, working hard, mowing lawns, that should not be the reason to give you that gold...You kind of jammed something down America’s throat. You said, ‘I understand you haven’t given me permission to contribute, but I want to contribute. So here I am doing it.’”
“Do we really want more illegal immigrants in our country?” he said. “I don’t think the answer is yes.”
And he is happy that illegal border crossings have declined. “I don’t want to sound like a Trump supporter, but something is working,” he said.
People rudely disagreeing with you is a far lighter punishment than, say, being deported from the United States. And yet the Times will always give a platform to moderates and conservatives whose greatest suffering is that someone rudely disagreed with them. The last opponent profiled is also the most moderate. But she is still fundamentally against sanctuary legislation, and took a Facebook picture at the Maryland state legislature when she went to testify against it.
On Facebook, someone commented: “Trump Terrorists.”
Ms. Zhou felt stung, but also confused. All she had done was disagree.
The Times is wrong about what is the most offensive part of that tableau.