An Open Letter to Michael Gerson

Every now and then on a Saturday morning I turn to the editorial section of my local paper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. My first look goes to The Modern World by Tom Tomorrow - an acerbic satirical mash-up of all the facepalm moments I’ve had listening to the willful ignorance of right wing pundits and their cultural minions. Next, I “scroll” down to read the refreshing thoughtful commentary by Princeton economist, Paul Krugman.

Finally, to discipline my enthusiasm and remind myself that living in a democratic culture means having to endure views opposed to my own, I move over to the space normally dedicated to Charles Krauthammer. When Mr. Krauthammer is out, this space is usually filled by you, Mr. Gerson. Today was one of those occasions.

First, I should provide some historical context of my interactions with you. Unless I’m terribly misinformed, televisions and newspapers don’t work as two-way communication devices, so the number of times I cursed you out from the comfort of my living room is likely unknown to you. This private incivility, I must admit, had little to do with the fact that I disagreed with you and more to do with your rhetorical competence of making a decent case to the public. But this momentary torture was a necessary step to gain and maintain an understanding of those who see the world differently.

The worst was during your position as speech writer for George W. Bush because you had the temerity to both disagree with me and be in a position of power. But I never turned away from you, Mr. Gerson, particularly during your appearances on the PBS Newshour. It was a time when I suspected the right had forsaken intellectual honesty; but you – along with David Brooks and the late Bill Safire - were some of the reasons I had only “suspected” this abandonment.

During the Obama years, I did take comfort in the fact that it was my side that was in power but I was frustrated by the fact that your disagreements with the Obama administration were genuine and not of the garden variety “secret Kenyan, Muslim, Socialist” ilk.

You’ve always been critical of Trump but your editorial this morning was refreshing - not because you’re willing to acknowledge facts as facts, anyone familiar with your work knows this is not new territory for you, but you’ve highlighted the hypocrisy in members of the religious right supporting Trump. It was this question in particular that grabbed me: “What does public life look like without the constraining internal force of character — without the firm ethical commitments often (though not exclusively) rooted in faith?”

Your inclusion of the parenthetical “(though not exclusively)” tells me a lot about where thoughtful conservatism is going. Most things we will never agree on. But if conservatives can embrace an ethic that not all decency is rooted in religious faith, and liberals can embrace one that not all conservatism is rooted in hatred for one half of the US population, perhaps we can find common ground and get back to honest disagreement.

Aren’t we much better off arguing about how to improve our country rather than who does or doesn’t want to improve our country?