A reader writes:
Jonah,
Are you defending the list and ideas put forth by Human Events?
Chait’s getting all huffy over something silly I think. But you don’t mention whether or not you agree w/ Human Events.
Chait attacks Human Events ideas. You are criticizing Chait, does that mean you support Human Events?
Where do you stand? Is Darwin a danger to society? Should the Theory of Evolution be minimized in public education?
The Corner did this w/ Deep Throat too. Fine Mark Felt might have been a disloyal pr*ck and Woodward is a boorish whore, but that doesn’t excuse Liddy, Colson, Nixon etc.
Fine Chait cannot write or argue well, but where do you stand? Those who put that list together are a danger to reason and democracy, the only time a book is harmful is when it is thrown at someone’s head. All ideas must be heard (not necessarily paid attention to but heard).
Me: This strikes me as hyperventillated nonsense. Some very quick thoughts in response.
I didn’t say Chait can’t write or argue well. If that were true, I wouldn’t bother criticizing him. He can do both quite well which is why his piece vexed me so.
Second, I said I thought the list was to a significant extent stupid. But not because of the content or the authors, but because it’s a list. I once had a book contract to rank in order the 100 most influential conservatives from antiquity to the present day. I know how dumb lists can be. I might quibble with the entries or the ordering or the criteria, but in general I don’t have the objection to the Human Events list this reader wants me to have.
This reader wants me to buy into the notion that books — i.e. ideas — can never be dangerous. Alas, I think that’s bunk. Of course books can be dangerous. Everything important, everything with the power to change mens’ minds can be dangerous. How you can believe a book — or a movie or a play — can make the world a better place but that it can never make the world a worse place is beyond me. Any medium which can uplift can confuse. Does the reader really think the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is only dangerous when thrown?
The notion that “art” can only be enlightening is a carbunkle of a cliché. The relevant question is, Therefore what? Since most people think censorship is the greatest evil known to man (a belief I’ve disputed many, many times), I certainly think criticizing ideas is not only fine, but sometimes necessary. Pragmatically, I admit this can backfire (calling a book “dangerous” increases its appeal). But I don’t see why, as a matter of principle, we can’t say some books made this world better and some books made this world worse.