Frum’s position amounts to this. If you express the wrong political views in public—by which he means, political views he disagrees with—that is a reason for the government to investigate you. Frum is not embarrassed by his position. Millions of Americans agree with Frum. He and they are entirely wrong. And the continuing viability of American and Western democracy depends on changing the hearts and minds of those millions.
How the First Amendment works
Seth Barrett Tillman didn't think much of David Frum's recent OpEd arguing that the Russia Hoax wasn't really a hoax:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I mean, Rand Paul or whoever can question NATO. But a President of the United States has to adhere to the discipline of the bureaucracy and its long-settled opinions. It's right there in the Constitution, except that it says the exact opposite. Still, everyone knows what the game is.
Yes the game is "But, but, this is TRUMP we're talking about!" I didn't much like the guy either. But I still kept my feet about what disagreement in America is all about. Frum's instincts are worse every year.
Andrew Sullivan has a SubStack on the same article. While it's got the usual just-so-stories to buttress the claim that where there was a wisp of smoke there had to at least be an ember to be investigated, he is at least honest enough to acknowledge that at the termination of the endless investigations and impeachments there wasn't even a scorch mark. He walks right up to admitting the entire concoction was intended at first to distract from the blatant and open corruption of the Hillary-Putin connection, before metastasizing into a fever dream of ejecting Trump from the White House.
Post a Comment