Commentary: Coinciding with the anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing, China, the New York Times chose to publish an opinion piece by Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas.
Cotton called on President Donald Trump to deploy the military to American cities, writing that they need “an overwhelming show of force,” echoing comments Trump made in a now-notorious phone call to governors last week.
Tiananmen Square was where China “sent in the troops.” After a month and a half of pro-democracy demonstrations, the Chinese government declared martial law, mobilized the military – and “restored order to the streets,” to use a phrase from Cotton’s piece. The death toll has been disputed ever since. The Chinese government admitted to as many as 300 deaths; other estimates are in the thousands.
The New York Times has been excoriated for running this piece, as well as its timing, by journalists and media critics, and even the Times’ own staff. But the editorial page editor, John Bennet, did not back down. He noted the Times has defended protests over police violence and the deaths of people of color in police custody; but he wrote that the Times “owes it to our readers to show them counter-arguments, particularly those made by people in a position to set policy.”
Bennet is falling back on the notion of a marketplace of ideas - the idea that if any proposal is allowed a platform and taken seriously, people will naturally find their way toward the truth which, like love, always conquers all.
Reading Cotton’s piece, there is little to be found by way of argument. He’s simply repeating the president’s call for a display of force, conflating civil protest of systemic violence with rioting and looting, in order to shift the conversation from justice to “law and order.” It is not a counter-argument; it is applause. Like a courtier to a king, Cotton is clapping and saying, “Go get ‘em.”
The Times's openness to publishing this illustrates the problem of bogus neutrality. They got used, just as they have been used to dignify and bless numerous criminal wars.
The problem with the marketplace of ideas is not just that the platform can normalize proposals that are toxic or without merit. It also reduces character and judgment to the role of a shopper.
Are we here to shop for ideas we like?
Or perhaps we have a responsibility to make sound judgments distinguishing the voices calling for the destruction of human civility from the voices upholding it.