Not to stir up an already fading "controversy," but I confess that I'm baffled — utterly baffled — by two commenters' objections to my permitting all of one mossback Brit to comment here. The overseas gentleman is a caricature of a low-information domestic voter, but harmless. In that, he is a perfect representation of a clueless Republican, which of course only does his side (were he an American) more harm. With his nearly every remark, he confirms my social democratic views. Why would I wish to ban such a public avatar of right-wing ignorance?
But more than that is the American tradition — the American value — of free speech. I do not and will not ban a commenter simply because of his or her political views. I once believed this was a value long and firmly held by this country's center-left more than its opponents. Held though it may be by center-lefters, firmly held it is not — at least by a minority; I hope, a slim minority. Hence the two aforementioned commenters have abandoned this site because of my refusal to ban the Brit — which otherwise would have abandoned the very root of the word "liberal" — liberty.
Another commenter, in an email, reminded me that I have often promoted the concept of pragmatism — another valued American tradition — and that by my willful loss of two excellent commenters, I have traded pragmatism for stupidity. Perhaps. It wouldn't be the first time. But I would likewise remind the correspondent that, yes, I have always promoted pragmatism — but pragmatism with principles. And I can think of no higher principle than freedom of speech.
If I cashed it in, this site would become yet another echo chamber so typical of right-wing sites, nearly all of which ban all commenters who express dissent. I will not go down that single-minded, dictatorial, censorious stream, which has many equally unpleasant tributaries. Just look at today's GOP.