chattr +a -V

Jonathan Rauch was on Hugh Hewitt's radio show this evening, streamed from various stations. Hewitt had printed one paragraph from Rauch's article in the January/February issue of The Atlantic (you have to pay to read the entire article), and he kept Rauch on for an extended discussion. Until the blog entry and interview, I don't know whether I had even heard of Rauch.

Now Hewitt is calling for blogs to discuss the single paragraph, which I include below. There's no transcript of the show, which is a real shame, since Rauch and Hewitt did explore what Rauch meant by his association of pro-lifers with the words 'insurgents and provocateurs'.

The paragraph Hewitt reproduces is not one available from The Atlantic for free. I got the impression from the show that Hewitt had read the entire article, putting his listeners at a big disadvantage.

It's a shame that there's no transcript available, since printing one paragraph without a link making the entire context available, is an invitation to folks constructing all sorts of commentaries, the major part of which are only opportunities for people to expound on their own views, not analyses of what Rauch meant: half blind hit-and-run blogging. Towards the end of his discussion with Rauch, Hewitt argued that if Rauch meant something besides 'scratch a pro-lifer and you find an abortion clinic car bomber' (my words, not Hewitt's or Rauch's), then Rauch owes a duty to put in print how that's not what he meant.

A similar argument can be directed at Hewitt: if you call for commentary on the one paragraph, and the entire article isn't available without paying for it, you owe a duty to post a transcript of the conversation you had with Rauch, to supply the context for the paragraph and Rauch's own words of explanation and interpretation.

Here's the paragraph:

"On balance it is probably healthier if religious conservatives are inside the political system than if they operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside. Better they should write anti-abortion planks into the Republican platform than bomb abortion clinics. The same is true of the left. The clashes over civil rights and Vietnam turned into street warfare partly because activists were locked out of their own party establishments and had to fight, literally, to be heard. When Michael Moore receives a hero's welcome at the Democratic National Convention, we moderates grumble; but if the parties engage fierce activists while marginalizing tame centrists, that is probably better for the social peace than the other way around."

Rauch engages in a counter-factual conditional relation: 'a conditional relation in which the form of expression of the antecedent and consequent marks them as imagined, nonfactual states or events' (emphasis supplied) when he writes 'it is probably healthier if religious conservatives are inside the political system than if they operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside. Better they should write anti-abortion planks into the Republican platform than bomb abortion clinics. The same is true of the left.'

Is it fair to wonder whether some pro-lifers, if they were shut out from political parties, would resort to violence? Maybe it is unfair, but it's not absurd to think it would be possible. Maybe using the words 'insurgents and provocateurs' is provocative, but asking people to opine on 'what [they say] about the author, The Atlantic, and the left's understanding of the Christian culture in America in 2005' is, well, to speak neutrally, unreasonable.

If Rauch intended to provoke anger, as well he might, then the use of the terms is typical of some bloggers on the left and the right: aggressive, 'macho' writing. I disagree with Rauch if he's implying that many pro-lifers would resort to violence and I also disagree with Rauch when he says the anti-war protestors rioted in the late 1960s because they were shut out from political parties. From personal experience of college at that time, the demonstrations and riots were because students knew they'd be drafted after graduation. Once Nixon ended the draft, the vast majority of demonstrations and violence ended. Not all of it, but the vast majority.

The personal threat, the personal danger, was gone.

Maybe Rauch has prejudices against pro-lifers, but it is not fair or reasonable to conclude he does, based on one paragraph.

Rauch doesn't seem to have a blog. Hewitt has one, but it has neither a comments feature nor trackbacks, which makes not for discussion, but each blogger posting conversations with himself on his own blog.

If Hewitt brings a guest on for another conversation like today's, I hope he chooses someone whose entire article being discussed, is available.

Hugh Hewitt is an attorney. He might know what the term is for what a grand jury hands up when it fails to return an indictment. Many years ago, I was told by an attorney that it's called an ignoramus. I'm afraid that's what many bloggers taking the bait and commenting on the one paragraph will show themselves to be.

This post's title comes from Mortimer Adler's How To Read a Book, of course.

UPDATE: Hewitt now has the entire article from The Atlantic on his site, along with a short response by Rauch to the blogs linked. Maybe I'll have more later.