July 23, 2014 at 2:10 p.m.
CR edit page fine (9/10/05)
Letter to the Editor
By To the editor:-
Several times in the past few years and again several weeks ago, The Commercial Review letters to the editor has included a letter by Mr. Stephen Erwin of Portland. I have occasionally written for these pages, and while I do not know Mr. Erwin, I feel as if we should be indebted to him for taking the time and energy to express a point of view which is likely held by other readers in the Jayland community.
While I am unable to comment on the depth and intensity of Mr. Erwin’s conservatism in his reading of various articles on The CR editorial page, I happen to disagree with his contention that the editorial pages of The Commercial Review lean further and further to the “radical left.”
Columnist William F. Buckley is the recipient of Erwin’s scorn, due to being “over the hill” and willing to use complex wording when short and simple might do just as well, etc. My guess is that Buckley might admit to sometimes being “stuffy” (whatever that assessment by Mr. Erwin might mean) but after all, Buckley is an Ivy League intellectual. Further, Mr. Buckley has at times been mildly critical of the current administration and this may have been sufficient to arouse Mr. Erwin’s conservative ire.
Buckley assuredly doesn’t need someone like me to defend him, but in my view he certainly is not leaning to the “radical left” in his columns in The CR.
Another regular contributor to The Commercial Review is columnist John Leo, a gentleman who is a political conservative as evidenced by his articles, but who, as is true for several others, fails to make the cut and have his name mentioned as a conservative according to Mr. Erwin’s stringent standards. Evidently, if Leo did get mentioned he would be among those Mr. Erwin describes as “mediocre at best” and unworthy of the conservative label.
It is clear that the intent of the editorial page is to allow the free expression of opinion, and it is inescapable that differences will emerge; this is certainly healthy and positive and to be encouraged.
My beef with Mr. Erwin and many much more widely known and published conservative writers is that their opinions are delivered with virtually no qualifiers, no provisos, no, “in my opinion,” or similar introductory phrases, while delivering sweeping indictments or condemnations as if the writer’s opinions had the weight and validity of law and were true beyond doubt.
In my view, these writers imply that they represent the truth and nothing but the truth and that it is delivered with such laser-like clarity and perceptive powers and with such compelling language that only a total dummy would fail to “get it.”
Sorry, but I can’t buy that. We deal with dauntingly complex and difficult issues in our time, and I can’t help thinking that we must look very carefully at those who suggest that answers and solutions can be found easily and simply.
Various conservative leaders and politicians have famously said in recent times, “We don’t do nuance,” or something similar, and to me that perception is precisely the problem. Confusing the strength of our convictions with the wisdom of our plans and strategies, we may embrace solutions which are based on previously arrived-at conclusions irrespective of the available facts. We can so fervently believe that we are right that no facts or data to the contrary can be convincing. For me, this is very shaky ground upon which to build national and international policies. When our leaders, or columnists who blindly support them, assure us that simple solutions to enormously complex issues are right at hand, I think we had best be very careful indeed.
Mr. Erwin closes with the mention of several “good conservative columnists” he would like to see in The CR, and in that list includes Ann Coulter.
I have not read much of Ms. Coulter’s offering, but I have yet to see a paragraph, page or title by the lady which to me was not full of sarcasm, hostility and contempt with a generally mean-spirited nastiness against (guess who?) those treacherous, traitorous, spineless liberals.
One of her most recent book titles is instructive: “How to Talk to Liberals (If You Must).”
Such writing, in my view, certainly suggests throwing red meat to the masses, but from the standpoint of building consensus and cooperation and community reason and trust, this style and content fall short.
In my opinion, Ms. Coulter and writers of similar persuasion do NOT deserve regular space on The Commercial Review’s editorial page.
Glen Priest
Portland[[In-content Ad]]
While I am unable to comment on the depth and intensity of Mr. Erwin’s conservatism in his reading of various articles on The CR editorial page, I happen to disagree with his contention that the editorial pages of The Commercial Review lean further and further to the “radical left.”
Columnist William F. Buckley is the recipient of Erwin’s scorn, due to being “over the hill” and willing to use complex wording when short and simple might do just as well, etc. My guess is that Buckley might admit to sometimes being “stuffy” (whatever that assessment by Mr. Erwin might mean) but after all, Buckley is an Ivy League intellectual. Further, Mr. Buckley has at times been mildly critical of the current administration and this may have been sufficient to arouse Mr. Erwin’s conservative ire.
Buckley assuredly doesn’t need someone like me to defend him, but in my view he certainly is not leaning to the “radical left” in his columns in The CR.
Another regular contributor to The Commercial Review is columnist John Leo, a gentleman who is a political conservative as evidenced by his articles, but who, as is true for several others, fails to make the cut and have his name mentioned as a conservative according to Mr. Erwin’s stringent standards. Evidently, if Leo did get mentioned he would be among those Mr. Erwin describes as “mediocre at best” and unworthy of the conservative label.
It is clear that the intent of the editorial page is to allow the free expression of opinion, and it is inescapable that differences will emerge; this is certainly healthy and positive and to be encouraged.
My beef with Mr. Erwin and many much more widely known and published conservative writers is that their opinions are delivered with virtually no qualifiers, no provisos, no, “in my opinion,” or similar introductory phrases, while delivering sweeping indictments or condemnations as if the writer’s opinions had the weight and validity of law and were true beyond doubt.
In my view, these writers imply that they represent the truth and nothing but the truth and that it is delivered with such laser-like clarity and perceptive powers and with such compelling language that only a total dummy would fail to “get it.”
Sorry, but I can’t buy that. We deal with dauntingly complex and difficult issues in our time, and I can’t help thinking that we must look very carefully at those who suggest that answers and solutions can be found easily and simply.
Various conservative leaders and politicians have famously said in recent times, “We don’t do nuance,” or something similar, and to me that perception is precisely the problem. Confusing the strength of our convictions with the wisdom of our plans and strategies, we may embrace solutions which are based on previously arrived-at conclusions irrespective of the available facts. We can so fervently believe that we are right that no facts or data to the contrary can be convincing. For me, this is very shaky ground upon which to build national and international policies. When our leaders, or columnists who blindly support them, assure us that simple solutions to enormously complex issues are right at hand, I think we had best be very careful indeed.
Mr. Erwin closes with the mention of several “good conservative columnists” he would like to see in The CR, and in that list includes Ann Coulter.
I have not read much of Ms. Coulter’s offering, but I have yet to see a paragraph, page or title by the lady which to me was not full of sarcasm, hostility and contempt with a generally mean-spirited nastiness against (guess who?) those treacherous, traitorous, spineless liberals.
One of her most recent book titles is instructive: “How to Talk to Liberals (If You Must).”
Such writing, in my view, certainly suggests throwing red meat to the masses, but from the standpoint of building consensus and cooperation and community reason and trust, this style and content fall short.
In my opinion, Ms. Coulter and writers of similar persuasion do NOT deserve regular space on The Commercial Review’s editorial page.
Glen Priest
Portland[[In-content Ad]]
Top Stories
9/11 NEVER FORGET Mobile Exhibit
Chartwells marketing
September 17, 2024 7:36 a.m.
Events
250 X 250 AD