Opinion: American values — responding to readers

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

When we last week launched our series on American values and the 2008 presidential campaign, we asked for your thoughts on the pieces, and you responded. In the hundred or so posts to our discussion boards on the four editorials we’ve run so far, some of you complained, some asked questions, a few even praised our work.

In the spirit of the conversation we’re eager to have, I thought I should respond, publicly, to some of the more provocative messages you’ve sent so far.

First, some of you are clearly angry with us, and much of that comes from those who don’t like our views on immigration. For us, immigration is a source of vigor and replenishment in American society — and that includes legal immigration as well as immigrants who are in this country illegally. Not everyone agrees. Peter, responding to our first editorial suggests that we’re pulling our punches when we welcome immigrants even as we acknowledge the tension between our belief in the rule of law and our compassion for those who are not in the country legally but are becoming part of its social and political fabric. ‘Who are you afraid of offending? The anxiety over our language and culture is real.’ Another reader, Bill, echoes that alarm and adds to it the charges of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty — he calls us ‘a source that doesn’t exhibit honesty in any way, shape or form.’ Well, yes, Peter and Bill, we hear the anxiety. We just don’t share it. To us, the challenges to our culture are invigorating, not alarming. And no, as should be obvious, we’re not afraid of offending — hey, we offended you!

Bill is not alone in charging us with hypocrisy — that’s an accusation that crops up in letters as well as in our discussion boards. GBW, writing about our ‘Life’ editorial, suggests that we like federalism when it works for us, and drop it when it doesn’t. That’s intriguing, and in some ways correct. Still, I’m going to argue that it’s not hypocrisy but rather an endemic feature of living in a society where both states and the federal government have duties. States’ rights once were the province of conservatives, who saw them as the bulwark against integrationist federal authority; lately, they’ve been more appealing to liberals, as states take a more aggressive position on global warming, for instance. As for the editorial board at The Times, we have our mishmash of views like anyone else, but we’ve never suggested that we live and die by federalism. We think the states should lead on certain issues and the federal government on others. And we’re hardly alone in that.

For some readers, the very idea of The Times holding forth on these issues and values is offensive. It reeks of superiority. Ted is one who doesn’t think much of us, and he questions our belief in due process for those captured outside America. Another reader, Martin, highlights the fact that our editorials ‘are strictly the opinions of the LA Times staff member or members,’ whom he sees as liberals intent on inducing readers to ‘vote for candidates that are in line with the agenda the LA Times wishes to push.’ Here, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, I enter the plea of partly guilty. Yes, we’re putting out an agenda, if by that you mean an attempt to draft a coherent set of ideas that should guide this campaign back to the roots of American history and society. That’s what editorial boards do, for whatever it’s worth. But just so you know: We’re hardly lock-step liberals. The editorial board and our colleagues, which are responsible for these pieces and the other editorials on our pages, is comprised of liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats and a libertarian or two. We have varied views on the many issues we’re discussing, and we don’t all agree with every word of the pieces you’re reading. And while we do intend to endorse candidates next year, we haven’t settled on anyone yet, so these pieces are not plugging a contender. We do want to contribute to a conversation — to lead it where we can — but there’s nothing hidden or nefarious about that. We’re trying our best to put down some thoughts that we think are worth discussing. We’re not the Trilateral Commission.

Some of you like what we’ve done so far, some of you don’t. One favorite note of mine come from TOMK, who writes: ‘WHEN YOU ARE IN LINE WAITING TO HAVE YOUR HEAD CHOPPED OFF, YOU WON’T BE WORRYING ABOUT A FEW SKUNKS BEING HELD IN GUANTANAMO.’ Clever, TOMK. You reinforce my long-held belief that nothing written in crayon or all caps is worth much attention. By contrast, a number of readers praised the series and several said they hoped the pieces would be gathered together and taught in classes. And then there’s David, who writes: ‘It’s too bad a newspaper can’t be president.’ Now, there’s a future worth imagining....

We won’t make all of you happy. We don’t want to. But I do hope that you’ll keep writing. Argue with us. Point out our failings and hypocrisies. Debate with us, politely, I hope, but angrily if you must. We may not share your views on every issue, but we do share a common patriotism that impels us to try to make this country worthy of its creed.

Tomorrow, we take still another stab at it, this time with our examination of the ‘Pursuit of Happiness’ and what it means to a modern America. We look forward to your thoughts.