Article Feedback Part 1: Progressives

I don’t get as much feedback on my articles as you might imagine, or perhaps I get plenty and they disappear down the gullet of my Twitter DMs or vanish into an inbox that currently contains 16,594 unread messages.

It’s just as well, mostly. Praise makes me uneasy. It feels like a trap, like I could drown in my own sticky self-satisfaction over a job well done. Everything I do stems from a desire for acceptance and adulation, and I worry that if I bask too long in either I’ll stop writing. I appreciate positive feedback, I thank people for it, secretly I like it more than I should, but I’m quite all right without it.

[EDIT: the above paragraph is a description of my weird neuroses and not me casting aspersion on any of the wonderful people who have supported and complimented me over the years. It is genuinely and sincerely appreciated.]

Criticism, on the other hand, fascinates me. I enjoy clapping back at bad-faith attacks, it’s one of the things I miss most about Twitter. When criticism comes from an earnest place I like to explain myself, or to defend myself, or to learn how to write and think more clearly. Sometimes I have to change my opinion entirely, which I love. Is there anything more delicious than encountering a mind that can challenge you on your home turf? Is there anything better, really, than losing an argument?

And so, today and tomorrow, I present: some criticism I received on my latest article, and my responses to it.

We shall start with a letter I received a few days ago, which contains an interesting version of a criticism I’ve received many times before: the idea that I’m too soft on the people and ideologies I write about. The Internet being what it is, usually that criticism comes in the form of “you’re a fascist,” which is not the sort of thing I care to engage with any longer. This letter, on the other hand, is an invitation to a conversation, which I accepted.

And so, without further ado: Why didn’t I push back more against Patriot Academy?

Dear Laura,

I read your article in The New Republic, and found it very well written, clear. I do have a rudimentary familiarity of the movements those people are leading, which are a huge threat to the actual freedoms that American democracy is struggling to support. Your efforts in reporting on their organizations are valuable and I hope you are careful with it.

Your descriptions of the groups' goals of having a (fascist) nation of Evangelical Christian-centered states is quite chilling to me. It must have been quite a week for you. I'm a Reform Jew, had a really good college education, and am grateful to live in [REDACTED] -- arguably one of the most politically progressive districts in the country. So you might imagine that I'm very opposed to living in a country that imposes an Evangelical Christian foundation to everything in public life. 

I'm not familiar with your other reporting yet, but I hope you don't mind if I share my reactions to this article. I found myself wondering why, in your reporting, you seem not to challenge any of the people you interview or spend time with, as though you view your job as being some kind of analytical recording device. I wonder why you didn't say, e.g. "Most scholars of the US Constitution agree that the 1st amendment guarantees that the state has an interest in keeping religion out of public life because the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," mean exactly what they say. Why should the public support an interpretation of a religious foundation that contradicts the actual text?

Also, it would've been good to see you coming right out and saying that not only does it sound like a theocracy, but it would actually be one, by definition. I wish you'd asked Green, how exactly he sees people who don't believe in Christian theology and his group's interpretation of Christian biblical moral behaviors would benefit from those principles?

Take care,[REDACTED]

Dear [REDACTED],

Thank you for writing. I’m really glad you found the article illuminating; it was a challenging one to craft.

I will say that I have never had anyone describe my voice as “analytical recording device” before — usually I get hit with the opposite criticism.

I notice that you do not ask me whether I am opposed to this group’s ideology, but why I didn’t spell it out. This suggests to me that my writing did convey my opposition. The article features a constitutional expert who explicitly pushes back against Patriot Academy’s agenda; the ideas do not go unchallenged.

Readers likely fall into one of two categories: either they believe the commonly accepted interpretation of the constitution as establishing a separation of church and state, or they agree with Patriot Academy and are unlikely to be persuaded by a few declarative sentences. I cannot easily imagine someone reading this article who is on the fence about the issue, and if that person exists I cannot imagine that overt editorializing would change their mind one way or another.

Modern journalists are slowly learning that allowing bad ideas to go unchallenged is not, in fact, good objective journalism but deeply irresponsible journalism. Unfortunately, the current solution appears to be heavy-handed declarations of opposition rather than an attempt to explore the issue beyond these groups’ surface PR. This article included a lot of words from my subjects, but also a fairly deep investigative dive into the dark money behind the movement and COSA’s evangelical foundation, which Meckler’s organization does not broadcast. A libertarian acquaintance wrote to tell me I’d convinced him to stop supporting COSA, which is fantastic. I hope he’s not the only one.

This article, which appeared in the print magazine, was supposed to be 5000 words. My editor got me 1500 extra: an incredible and unusual gift. I don’t want to waste a single precious word on sledgehammer explanations or pearl-clutching. I trust my audience to get there without me holding their hand, as you did. They can make up their minds as to whether Green’s distinction between a theocracy and the thing he advocates for means anything or not. I gesture towards a conclusion, but leave it to the reader to take that final step. 

Finally, I want conservatives to read my work. I want my measured opposition to register, and I want it to perhaps plant a seed of doubt — “the libs DO actually understand what we’re all about and yet they still dislike it, I wonder why that is.” Sledgehammer explanations stop them in their tracks. Subtlety does a better job of reaching them. My subjects almost universally refuse to read or consider “fake news media,” but often reach out to say that while they don’t agree with my conclusions, they appreciate that I portrayed their positions correctly. Which means they read the article and understood that I disagree. Which means I’ve done my job.

I hope this answers your question and also that what Patriot Academy desires never comes to pass. I would not do particularly well under such a regime — too queer, too weird — and I have a lot of friends who would do far worse. Hopefully the article helps people see what’s going on in some conservative circles and prepares them in some small way to push back if this movement continues to grow.

Best,-Laura 

Tomorrow, I’ll share the reactions you’re probably most curious about: what my Patriot Academy classmates thought of the thing I wrote about them. They had some really cool things to say. Stay tuned!

Thumbnail image by StartupStockPhotos from Pixabay