The left-leaning world has been roiled by the Cotton “Send in the Troops” NYT op-ed. There is no division of opinion about its merits; all concerned agree that it was factually inaccurate, proto-fascist crap. The issue is whether the NYT should have printed it.
Those who say no basically make the following arguments:
- There are ideas that are so antithetical to the values of a free press and liberal democracy that they are not worthy of public consideration. For example, the NYT would not print an op-ed calling for the extermination of African-Americans.
- That is partly a function of self-interest. Does it make sense to provide a forum for people who don’t believe the left-leaning press has a right to exist?
- The Cotton column was so flawed, and so self-evidently outside the boundaries of liberal democratic discourse, that it should never have appeared in the NYT.
Those who support the printing of the op-ed say the following:
- A newspaper dedicated to liberal democratic values should err, wherever possible, in favor of more speech rather than less;
- Cotton, like Trump, clearly speaks for a significant segment of the electorate. Ignoring their views is dangerous to those who disagree with them;
- The column was wrong, but not clearly beyond the boundaries of decency; and
- The column showed Cotton for what he is. He will be wearing it for the rest of his political career. Running it was, therefore, a public service.
This isn’t an easy question to answer. It depends largely on whether you think the column was more akin to, say, advocating genocide or slavery than a standard GOP policy statement. For me, however, the second position is correct in this instance. The NYT didn’t just troll its readers; it exposed the views of a potential future GOP leader and presidential candidate for the whole world to see. That is a valuable public service.