Vox Blogoli 2005

The first Vox Blogoli of 2005 hosted by Hugh Hewitt deals with the following comment in this column by Jonathan Rauch in The New Atlantic (subscription required):

“On balance it is probably healthier if religious conservatives are inside the political system than if they operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside. Better they should write anti-abortion planks into the Republican platform than bomb abortion clinics. The same is true of the left. The clashes over civil rights and Vietnam turned into street warfare partly because activists were locked out of their own party establishments and had to fight, literally, to be heard. When Michael Moore receives a hero’s welcome at the Democratic National Convention, we moderates grumble; but if the parties engage fierce activists while marginalizing tame centrists, that is probably better for the social peace than the other way around.”

This comment reflects the prevalent attitude towards Christians among the Left. Rauch's characterization of religious conservatives as the equivalent of terrorists is disgusting. It amazes me that a comparison such as this is allowed a free pass by the media or that a responsible, self-respecting media outlet would allow such outrageous statements to be published. Certainly if a conservative writer would to publish an equally egregious remark about the Left the mainstream media wouldn't hesitate to call for the writer's head on a platter.

The Left would do well to follow Habit #5 of Stephen Covey's Seven Habits for Highly Successful People: Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood. The Left does not understand religious conservatives. They do not understand why anyone would oppose things such as abortion on demand, gay marriage, tolerance education, or any of the other positions the Left holds dear. Rather than seeking to understand conservatives and particularly Christians, they prefer to mock them and attempt to marginalize them by characterizing them as crackpots.

UPDATE: Hugh has posted a response from Rauch regarding this paragraph as well as the entire article. Rauch's quick response confirms Hugh's thesis in today's Weekly Standard column on how the blogosphere is changing the flow of information.

I give Rauch credit for being to willing to admit his mistake in how he wrote the article. I'm still a little baffled as to how it got past his editors. Perhaps this says something about The Atlantic's own biases?