Letter: Polarizing columns do no one any good

Todd Dorman's new hat likely will lead to rethinking of The Gazette's Insight pages.

I'd like the editorial staff to consider how conservative thought is represented. Though Charles Krauthammer usually argues well, he is little different from Walter Williams and David Harsanyi in that his columns are almost always polarizing. A polarizing column seeks to confirm readers' beliefs that American culture is divided into two mutually exclusive camps between which there can be no dialogue or compromise.

In these columns, liberals are caricatures, not real people. They are: anti-American, hypocritical, stupid, self-contradictory, evil. The familiar list is easily lengthened.

See for example, Walter Williams's column asserting that removing monuments to Jim Crow white supremacy amounts to a 'typical liberal” attempt to silence opposition and erase history that must lead logically to ISIS-like demolition of the Jefferson Memorial and Soviet-like changing the name of the U.S. Capital. His lack of interest in the arguments offered by serious people on either side reveals his purpose, which, as usual, is to show how liberals are beyond the pale.

Conservatism and readers would be better served if The Gazette published columnists who articulate conservative principles and apply them to current issues and events. I'd recommend David Brooks as one candidate. Polarizing columns do no one any good, whatever their political viewpoint.

Instead, The Gazette should raise the level of public discourse by publishing columns that inform with verifiable facts and present not merely criticism, but also positive arguments grounded in principles.

Terry Heller

Cedar Rapids