‘Radical’ defense
I frequently read and agree with many of David Brooks’ commentaries.
But his recent Dec. 13 column (“What’s wrong with radicalism”) was absolutely off-base in portraying the current left and right factions as somehow equivalent in their “radicalism.”
This is absurd on the face of it.
He implies that both sides believe they must “commit evil acts for good causes.”
Currently, it is plainly the Bannon wing, not the Bernie wing that is out to destroy institutions by any means necessary.
These means include blatantly false and inflammatory propaganda, destruction of health, safety, and environmental protections and extreme weakening of the social safety net.
I do believe that “love is a genuine force in human nature,” as Brooks says.
Note that it was leaders like Martin Luther King and Gandhi, both considered “radical” (left) in their time, who espoused ideas such as this.
Sadly, we have not seen evidence of that sentiment from our brethren on the far right.
It is tragic but true that in this moment in our country our common values of decency and equality, institutions like our justice system and our public schools, and protections for our most vulnerable, must all be vigorously defended and strengthened.
If defense of these things is considered “warlike” or “radical” then millions of us on the left are guilty as charged, and proud of it.
Lisa Dekker,
Port Angeles