Editor's note: The powers that be at WND.com have told Michael Ackley he may submit the occasional column. As the general madness has accelerated, Mr. Ackley has succumbed to the urge to get back in the game. Hence, the matter below. Remember that his columns may include satire and parody based on current events, and thus mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell the difference.
What passes for intelligentsia in the eastern reaches of the United States has been aflutter over "A Letter on Justice and Open Debate," which calls for a return to the "norms of open debate" and freedom from "ideological conformity."
The missive, published in Harper's magazine, bears the signatures of intellectual luminaries from the groves of academe, the roll of authors and poets, even the world of music.
While it is widely believed the letter was drafted by passing it from signatory to signatory until each of its 150 signers had contributed three and a half words, actually it was written by a pair of collaborators: Howard Bashford and Amy Handleman.
It went like this:
"Say, Amy," began Howard, stopping his friend outside the Library of Congress, "somebody has to do something about the lack of civility."
"You are so right," replied Amy. "Let us sit down on this bench and draft an open letter. We can title it 'A Letter about Nasty Right Wingers.'"
"Good idea," said Howard, "but it must suggest we're trying to touch the better angels of our nature. Why don't we just call it 'A Letter on Justice and Open Debate'?"
"That's pretty bland," said Amy, "but it's OK if we can blame the problem on Donald Trump. Otherwise we'll have to turn in our credentials to the Association of Really Smart People."
Howard mulled this over and suggested, "Try this, 'The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump.'"
"That's it!" Amy gushed, "but can't we add that he 'represents a real threat to democracy'?"
"That's the idea," agreed Howard. "And put this in, 'Right-wing demagogues already are unfairly exploiting left-wing intolerance.'" And he snickered, "like among the staffs of certain newspapers."
"That's it," laughed Amy. "We can call for tolerance, but let left-wingers off the hook because their intolerance is being unfairly exploited."
"It's really kind of brilliant, Howard," she continued. "We could amplify the point by declaring, 'Right-wing censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture.'"
Howard agreed, writing it down. "Now, who are we going to get to sign the letter?"
The two sat on the bench, scribbling names in their notebooks until they were nearing the total of 150. Suddenly, Amy gasped, "So far, we have nobody but our liberal friends. We have to find at least one conservative."
They pondered the matter quietly for several minutes, until Amy said, "How about David Brooks?"
"That's it!" Howard laughed. "David will go for anything that zings the Right. It will give the letter balance."
"You know what would make this stronger?" Amy said, and answered her own question, "a list of cases in which right-wingers got people fired for being tolerant of opposing views, or how they have harassed liberals in restaurants and other public places, or cowed and bullied co-workers."
The two sat and cogitated for several minutes more.
At last Howard burst out, "Alexander Vindman!"
"Maybe not the most sympathetic case," Amy said. "I think it will be enough to claim right-wing incivility, even if we can't cite any really good examples."
"That's it, then," said Howard. "Let's get our draft out to our email address lists. We can be sure most everybody will sign it, and maybe suggest changes to make it stronger. We want the final product to by eloquent, dynamic, cogent, committed, anything but …"
"Mealy-mouthed?" Amy suggested.
"That's it!" said Howard.
The post The real story behind Harper's 'open debate' letter appeared first on WND.
