The editors of National Review have challenged their counterparts at the Wall Street Journal to a debate on the pending immigration bill, leading Jonah Goldberg to an effusion sillier than anything he has ever said about Animal House:
It’s a shame really, just the other day the editors of the Journal ran that quite good piece by Peter Berkowitz lambasting the left for its refusal to debate first principles while cheering the right for its eagerness to do exactly that. Two days later NR challenges those editors to precisely the sort of debate conservatives take pride in and the response has been (significant?) silence.
Compounding the silliness, he complains that Best of the Web, the Journal’s daily blog equivalent but not the voice of its editorial board, neglected today to mention NR’s challenge, doubtless one of the key events in the blogosphere.
Has the WSJ’s editorial page been silent about the immigration controversy, the way that the Left is silent about, say, long-range strategy in the conflict with Islamofascism? Well, there’s this and this and this and this, plus others for which non-subscriber links aren’t available. And last weekend’s Journal Editorial Report on Fox News featured a debate on the topic pitting two WSJ editorialists against National Review columnist Byron York. And tomorrow morning the WSJ’s Stephen Moore will face off against ueber-restrictionist Mark Krikorian. This adds up to “refusal to debate first principles”?
Actually, the specific debate that NR wants isn’t about “first principles” but a particular piece of legislation, one that the Journal has itself criticized. Maybe a face-off between these two wings of conservative journalism on the merits of that link of sausage would be watchable TV, but I don’t think its absence will be evidence of intellectual stagnation on the Right.
(Update, 6/4/07): Best of the Web passes on WSJ editor Paul Gigot’s response to National Review’s challenge, the short version of which is that he tried to get NR writers to appear on Fox News’ Journal Editorial Report, and they declined. Contrary to what I wrote above, based on advance announcements, Byron York wasn’t on the show. He accepted, then backed out, then was asked to reconsider, then said that he was willing but couldn’t because he had a story to work on.
NR’s rejoinder is that debating on the Journal’s show doesn’t count. That would only be “dueling sound bites”. Apparently, there can be no “open, substantive debate” until the television public is treated to a contest conducted in accordance with the Marquis of Lowry’s Rules.
I’ve been reading National Review since the pre-Goldwater era. Never before have its editors been so embarrassingly juvenile. Perhaps this incident is evidence of the debilitating effect of immigration restrictionism on the conservative mind.
Comments