The NYT has caused a sensation by printing an op-ed by Tom Cotton which recommends sending in the regular military to crush the demonstrations. The NYT initially responded to the negative reaction by defending its longstanding practice of providing the public with a wide range of viewpoints, including some with which it has absolutely no sympathy. Later on, it appeared to back away from this position, and said that the op-ed didn’t meet their standards.
They were right the first time. They did the public a service by giving Cotton a forum to show how flimsy his arguments are. Just to list a few:
- There is no evidence that Antifa is running wild in our streets. Relative to, say, 1968, the loss of life and property damage has actually been quite mild;
- The “precedents” he cited don’t work, because California invited federal assistance after the Rodney King episode, while the government of Arkansas was actively resisting federal court orders; and
- There is no assurance that the mere presence of regular military would overawe the protesters and put an end to the violence. Then what? The only plausible Plan B would be to mow down the demonstrators with overwhelming force. Is Cotton really advocating that?
Donald Trump, to our great good fortune, may be discrediting the illiberal project with his innumerable personality defects and terrible record. Cotton would not do the same thing. He has a glittering resume, and he’s not obviously narcissistic, capricious, or corrupt. If America ever decides to go with the Orban option, he will probably play a big part in it. He bears watching.