Throwing this on Frum is an odd take. I don’t agree with his policies, but a free press means an exchange of ideas. And in this piece, we see reasoned discourse, not some sort of batshit set of plans (but who needs that when you have Project 2025?).
Saying that a concept (or set of concepts) has no value because of who is saying it is an interesting intellectual choice. We all fuck up; we all change over the years. My dad, for example, was a die-hard Reagan supporter, and he didn’t drink, let alone use cocaine. Now, in his 80s, he won’t touch any GOP candidate, voting straight Dem regardless.
If my dad can realise in his golden years that the message is more important than the messenger, it’s not a stretch to think others can as well.
What are you going on about? I’m not saying he should be banned from printing his ideas, I’m saying his characterizing continued Liberal rule as an unfortunate consequence of needing to stop Trump insanity is indicative that he’s still his same neocon self and hasn’t reflected on the relationship of his political work and the current climate.
It’s ok to not pretend every op-ed is a fresh expression of ideas with no context stemming from their author’s history or world view, and it’s similarly ok not to treat all world views as just curious and value neutral opinions enriching a beautiful tapestry of ideas.
David Frum has been an instrumental and active shaper of the conservative-led degeneration of American values since the Bush administration. Trump is his limit, but everything in the whole rotten project before that was fine. No, we don’t need to divorce the message from the messenger. The message itself is bad, but the messenger’s role in the while situation deserves extra criticism.
I’m coming from the perspective of both neoliberalism and neoconservatism having failed me. I don’t really care who’s talking at this point unless they have solutions on offer.
Throwing this on Frum is an odd take. I don’t agree with his policies, but a free press means an exchange of ideas. And in this piece, we see reasoned discourse, not some sort of batshit set of plans (but who needs that when you have Project 2025?).
Saying that a concept (or set of concepts) has no value because of who is saying it is an interesting intellectual choice. We all fuck up; we all change over the years. My dad, for example, was a die-hard Reagan supporter, and he didn’t drink, let alone use cocaine. Now, in his 80s, he won’t touch any GOP candidate, voting straight Dem regardless.
If my dad can realise in his golden years that the message is more important than the messenger, it’s not a stretch to think others can as well.
What are you going on about? I’m not saying he should be banned from printing his ideas, I’m saying his characterizing continued Liberal rule as an unfortunate consequence of needing to stop Trump insanity is indicative that he’s still his same neocon self and hasn’t reflected on the relationship of his political work and the current climate.
It’s ok to not pretend every op-ed is a fresh expression of ideas with no context stemming from their author’s history or world view, and it’s similarly ok not to treat all world views as just curious and value neutral opinions enriching a beautiful tapestry of ideas.
David Frum has been an instrumental and active shaper of the conservative-led degeneration of American values since the Bush administration. Trump is his limit, but everything in the whole rotten project before that was fine. No, we don’t need to divorce the message from the messenger. The message itself is bad, but the messenger’s role in the while situation deserves extra criticism.
I’m coming from the perspective of both neoliberalism and neoconservatism having failed me. I don’t really care who’s talking at this point unless they have solutions on offer.