ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

Jonah Goldberg: The child soldiers of the post-Parkland gun-control war

| Monday, March 5, 2018, 9:00 p.m.
Megan Longstreet holds up a sign as she stands in solidarity with victims of Florida's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2018, in Greensboro, N.C. The group Indivisible Guilford County held the rally to push for new gun control measures. (Andrew Krech/News & Record via AP)
Megan Longstreet holds up a sign as she stands in solidarity with victims of Florida's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2018, in Greensboro, N.C. The group Indivisible Guilford County held the rally to push for new gun control measures. (Andrew Krech/News & Record via AP)

In the wake of the horrific slaughter in Parkland, Fla., a cadre of energized and understandably traumatized teenagers has flooded Washington and the airwaves to say remarkably passionate, occasionally extreme things about guns and the need for gun control.

Because these teens are politically effective, a bunch of goons, buffoons and trolls have floated conspiracy theories aimed at discrediting them. I won't be more specific than that because it's all reprehensible bilge.

At the same time, some gun-control advocates, including many who claim the mantle of “objective” journalism, believe these kids cannot be criticized in any way. Apparently, it's fine to push kids suffering from post-traumatic stress — or murdered children's grieving parents — in front of cameras to drive public policy, but it's an affront to decency to disagree with what they say or question the practice of using victims this way. Of course, the parents and the surviving kids aren't being forced to do anything. They want to be heard, and have every right to do what they're doing. Indeed, they're entitled to their rage and grief. They are right to be furious.

But fury, in and of itself, is the enemy of reason. This point was once obvious to many of the people eagerly hiding behind these children to wage a political battle. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks — and countless terrorist attacks since then — the op-ed pages and the airwaves bulged with cautions that we not let “vengeance” or “anger” cloud our judgment.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd spoke for so much of the liberal establishment when she lionized Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in the Iraq war. “The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute,” Dowd insisted. NBC News turned Sheehan into a national folk hero. It didn't matter that she hardly spoke for all parents of the fallen and was politically radical. She was too useful as a cudgel against George W. Bush.

Sheehan's utility had a sell-buy date, though. When she became a thorn in the side of Barack Obama, the media downgraded her to a crank and a gadfly.

And that's what I find so tawdry and mercenary about all of this. I can scarcely imagine that the same people touting the unimpeachable wisdom of children would have the same position if the children of terror-attack victims called for, say, a ban on Muslims entering the country.

Of course, the response from many people to this counterfactual would be, “But that's a bad idea,” or, “That would be unconstitutional.”

And that's my point exactly.

In an enlightenment-based democracy, the validity of an argument is supposed to stand independent of the person — or people — making it. Two plus two equals four whether a child says so or a demagogue denies it.

Of course, in real life, it doesn't always work that way. Sometimes, credibility or moral authority carries more weight than arguments. And perhaps more often, passion and emotion sway.

Of course I feel sorry for the victims, and I support their right to parrot the extreme rhetoric of their elders. But I am disgusted by the entire spectacle, and I feel sorry for a country that thinks any of this is remotely normal.

Jonah Goldberg is an editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me