It’s not a bad article. It gets the major point right:
Yet politics-as-conversation (PAC) and politics-as-war (PAW) are not only mutually distinct conceptions of politics; they are mutually antithetical. They differ not only in degree, but in kind.
Big Conservatives can’t have it both ways. Either there is a war between the Left and the rest of us or there is not. If there is a war, then leftists compose the enemy, an adversary that, not unlike any other adversary in war, needs to be destroyed.
I presume the author, a philosophy professor specialising in ethics, is not suggesting that elements of the government controlled by the right should arrest everyone to the left of Mitt Romney. But then what? Let’s even say that we agree with him: “There’s a war” and “leftists compose the enemy” and therefore “need[] to be destroyed.”
My question is a simple one: In a PAW scenario, what do you suggest the right actually do?
It’s not a bad article. It gets the major point right:
I presume the author, a philosophy professor specialising in ethics, is not suggesting that elements of the government controlled by the right should arrest everyone to the left of Mitt Romney. But then what? Let’s even say that we agree with him: “There’s a war” and “leftists compose the enemy” and therefore “need[] to be destroyed.”
My question is a simple one: In a PAW scenario, what do you suggest the right actually do?