Intolerance rears its ugly head

Few things are more tiresome than pundits discussing punditry. Nonetheless, the controversy over the hiring of former National Review correspondent Kevin Williamson as a columnist for The Atlantic says some important things about the media and intellectual diversity in today’s America.

The news that Williamson, whose first online column for The Atlantic appeared Monday, was joining the venerable center-left magazine’s roster of contributors sparked a firestorm of outrage on the left — on Twitter and in progressive publications. He was denounced as a racist and misogynist bigot, and The Atlantic was assailed for its willingness to publish conservatives with terrible opinions as long as they hate Donald Trump. Williamson, author of the 2015 book “The Case Against Trump,” is the quintessential #NeverTrump conservative.

Much of the outrage focused on a 2014 Twitter exchange in which Williamson argued that abortion should be treated like a homicide; when asked whether he would imprison women who have abortions and medics who perform them, he replied, “I had hanging more in mind.” In context, it’s clear he was being confrontational rather than advocating actual policy — especially because he has written elsewhere that he leans against capital punishment. Williamson, who deleted his Twitter account in February, did not respond to a request for comment.

One can certainly find those tweets ill-advised and appalling, as I did when I saw them at the time. But let those who have never trolled cast the first stone. Feminist commentator Jessica Valenti, the most determined anti-Williamson crusader, once tweeted a photo of herself in a T-shirt that said, “I bathe in male tears” — and wrote a column defending male-bashing as a justified female reaction to sexism. It’s easy to find other examples of noxious things said by leftists on Twitter and in other venues. To let them off the hook yet banish Williamson would be a blatant double standard.

Williamson, a brilliant and interesting writer, can be not only provocative but also insensitive; his enemies on the right have also blasted him as hateful for his scathing commentary on Trump’s white working-class supporters. But the progressive broadsides against him show that for many on the left, the problem isn’t Williamson but any opinion that strays from left-wing cultural dogma.

Thus, New Republic writer Sarah Jones points to Williamson’s belief that “rape culture is a fiction” as evidence of extremism — which would also disqualify Atlantic contributing editor Emily Yoffe, a liberal who criticizes feminist claims of a campus rape epidemic. Media Matters for America, a progressive advocacy group, thinks Williamson is extreme for supporting a ban on abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy. A Huffington Post piece indicting Williamson also excoriates conservative New York Times columnist Bret Stephens for defending Woody Allen against sexual abuse accusations. Let these critics win, and only the politically correct will have access to respectable platforms.

The issue is not that the mainstream media need more conservatives. What’s needed is more independent thinkers who can look past clichés and are unafraid to skewer any side’s sacred cows. Williamson certainly fits the bill. Let some of them even be pro-Trump if they can make an intelligent argument. Yes, some views should be beyond the pale; but such lines should be drawn carefully, and they shouldn’t be based on combative deleted tweets.

At a time when public discourse has increasingly descended into political tribalism and personal attacks, we need all the intelligent voices we can get — not exclusions based on tribalism.

Cathy Young is a contributing editor to Reason magazine.