If you haven’t read the New York Times Op-Ed piece by Tom Cotton, “Send in the Troops”, that caused such a ruckus last week, it’s here and if you don’t have a sub, it’s here in Word, with thanks to the Times.
See if you think that it’s a reasonable article, or at least one with reasoning. And then see if you are one of the 58% of Americans, or up to 77% of Americans who support sending federal troops to stop looting, rioting and vandalism, if the local police are unable to do so, and seek their support.
Or if you agree with the NYT columnist Michelle Goldberg, that the Op-Ed, by simply arguing for such action -- to prevent harm to civilians, mostly in minority communities, mind -- is fascist.
If anyone is out of step here, surely it’s Goldberg and the Times owners who caved to the woke mob.
Worth noting that the Times did fact check the piece -- they always do -- and found nothing wrong factually. It’s just the ideas they don’t like. That they call “fascist”. But which a substantial majority of Americans agree with.
ADDED: Important to emphasise that Cotton does not suggest sending in the troops unilaterally. He says, twice, that it ought be an option, in support of local police:
UPDATE (18 June): NYT podcast ‘Which opinions are out of bounds?’ Which I’m listening to now, and Goldberg is again building straw men — that Cotton is calling for “occupation” of American cities to “suppress demonstrations against racism”, whereas Cotton specifically said it would not be occupation and would be aimed at the rioters, looters and arsonists, not the peaceful demonstrators. It’s almost like she didn’t read the article.
See if you think that it’s a reasonable article, or at least one with reasoning. And then see if you are one of the 58% of Americans, or up to 77% of Americans who support sending federal troops to stop looting, rioting and vandalism, if the local police are unable to do so, and seek their support.
Or if you agree with the NYT columnist Michelle Goldberg, that the Op-Ed, by simply arguing for such action -- to prevent harm to civilians, mostly in minority communities, mind -- is fascist.
If anyone is out of step here, surely it’s Goldberg and the Times owners who caved to the woke mob.
Worth noting that the Times did fact check the piece -- they always do -- and found nothing wrong factually. It’s just the ideas they don’t like. That they call “fascist”. But which a substantial majority of Americans agree with.
ADDED: Important to emphasise that Cotton does not suggest sending in the troops unilaterally. He says, twice, that it ought be an option, in support of local police:
…but it’s past time to support local law enforcement with federal authority. [para 8]And:
According to a recent poll, 58 percent of registered voters, including nearly half of Democrats and 37 percent of African-Americans, would support cities’ calling in the military to “address protests and demonstrations” that are in “response to the death of George Floyd.” [para 12]That’s a majority of Americans, nearly half Democrats and a plurality of Black Americans. It really does seem to me the Times had a fit of the vapours. Michelle Goldberg, for example, finds the piece “sneering”. Where?
UPDATE (18 June): NYT podcast ‘Which opinions are out of bounds?’ Which I’m listening to now, and Goldberg is again building straw men — that Cotton is calling for “occupation” of American cities to “suppress demonstrations against racism”, whereas Cotton specifically said it would not be occupation and would be aimed at the rioters, looters and arsonists, not the peaceful demonstrators. It’s almost like she didn’t read the article.
