Yes, his voice and his opinions are so marginalized that he gets a chance to tell his sad story across, like, 5 different major media platforms.
Printable View
You’ll have to explicate what you think that “end game” is, then. I included the hedging parenthetical because I imagined you might have non-law-of-parsimony idea of why “power brokers hide behind the auspices of special interests when in reality they don’t care at all.”
So yea, I half agree. I don’t think the state, per se, is the problem; nor do I think protection from the rapacity of capital is impossible, or possible in name only. But I do agree the “end game” of such perfidious patronage of “special interests” is consolidation of capital to the hands of capital, and power to the powers-that-be. But that’s the “end game” of capitalism itself, so it’s hardly surprising—as I said, lex parsimoniae.
So no, if you think the “end game [...] desired by these 'power brokers' would be much more agreeable for” me, then you’ve misunderstood what I find agreeable.
When the power is with the state (sponsored by the rich) that's a socialist system. Always has been.
When freedom is given to the citizens to make their decisions both economically and socially then that is a blend which leans heavily capitalist.
This push to regulate speech and what is acceptable thought is beginning of the end.
I never see leftists getting hired by this kind of outlet.
I agree with you that there is a too-narrow band of discourse deemed appropriate by the gatekeepers here.
He got fired because the Atlantic decided that his upside was not worth defending his repeated take that women who've had abortions should be hanged. You've assiduously declined to address what he actually wrote, which I think is an important component here.
I mean, if ideological diversity is what you're after here, why aren't you similarly het up that center-right publications don't hire socialists to write for them?