[T]he newest columnist for The New York Times, Bret Stephens, caused quite a kerfuffle among climate change advocates when he recently wrote: “Claiming total certainty about the science [of climate change] traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong.”
Stephens went on to write, “Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.”
He asserts that none of this is to deny the severity of climate change but he concludes his column this way: “Perhaps if there were less certitude about our climate future, more Americans would be interested in having a reasoned conversation about it.”
After his column ran many took to social media to express outrage. They labeled Stephens a climate change denier. There were calls for him to be fired. Some ended their subscriptions to the Times.
Other columnists and media outlets, especially Erik Wemple of The Washington Post, eviscerated Stephens by describing his column as, “a dreadfully argued piece contending that … well, the point is buried in false starts, bogus reasoning and imprecise writing.” A reporter from Gizmodo — a science and entertainment news website — tweeted to Stephens, “You’re a s-thead. a crybaby lil f-kin weenie. a massive twat too.”
By the way, Bret Stephens won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2013 when he worked for the Wall Street Journal.
Despite where you may stand politically on the issue of climate change — and I am much more sympathetic to those advocating for action in the this area than I suspect Stephens is — there is a larger point that doesn’t center on climate change, and, in fact, nowadays, seems to apply to most major public policy debates.
It’s a disturbing trend in which both the political left and right are more interested in demonizing those they disagree with rather than trying to persuade opponents with the merits of their cause.
In essence, we have weaponized our retorts to inflict the most damage to those with whom we disagree. We don’t seek converts — heck, we don’t even look for compromise — instead, we seek casualties.
Opponents and their opinions must be eliminated rather than be reckoned with. If there happens to be collateral damage to free speech, then unfortunately that’s the price that must be paid for a victory.
This certainly seems to have been the thinking of some at Middlebury College when they prevented controversial author Charles Murray from speaking on that college’s campus.
But stifling speech is dangerous stuff, especially in a democracy, because ultimately the goal is to ban opposing thought. Unfortunately, if you are on the losing end of what is deemed acceptable speech then what will probably follow is some form of persecution for your beliefs.
All of this is not an argument against vigorous political and public policy debate. In fact, there’s much intellectual rigor in strongly held positions being passionately debated.
As a society we benefit immensely from this type of speech. But a line is crossed when free speech is denied — as was the case at Middlebury College — and when your argument is reduced to calling an opponent, a “twat.” In too many instances intellectual conversations are being replaced with thuggish and boorish behavior.
With today’s technology we have the ability to seek out all sorts of information. No longer are we tethered to news that is filtered through the lens of three television networks, or through the opinions of a few national newspapers and one wire service.
But with this modern day ability to search for all sorts of diverse and contrary information comes the prospect that we will gravitate solely to — and be reinforced by — those of like minds.
Through technology we can form exclusive clubs where information and relationships are sought out that are in line with our own perspectives. There is no diverse or contrary opinion because none is allowed.
There is certitude in our beliefs because they go unchallenged. In essence, we have the potential of self-radicalizing ourselves.
Is this the society that we seek: close-minded and polarized, perhaps even radicalized?
The words of “The Captain” [the prison warden] in the 1967 movie “Cool Hand Luke,” aptly apply to the dilemma we find ourselves in these days: “What we have here is a failure to communicate.”
