http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/opinion/30brooks.html
This op-ed piece offends me. First, I think it's kind of silly to assume that encouraging a wider distribution of information makes Assange an anarchist. Somehow, I can't quite make the leap from transparency to anarchy, but maybe that's just me.
Second, Brooks' point that governments lying is healthy and natural (well, it might be natural, but probably not healthy) is good provided it maintains some form of order. This idea begs a few questions in my mind: what's the value of a world order that is predicated on lies and a lack of openness? Who really benefits from this world order Brooks would encourage us to maintain? I think the global south would have a different take than someone writing from inside the Beltway...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Brooks is the last Burkean standing in the US, I think. I can respect that, even if I don't agree with it. Order, tradition, continuity - reverence for the way things are. Someone has to keep that flame flickering in an age when many conservatives seem to be spinning off into radicalism.
ReplyDelete