[Eugene Volokh, January 9, 2009 at 1:43pm] Trackbacks
"Why We Should Welcome Cass Sunstein,"

by Prof. Glenn Reynolds (InstaPundit) in Forbes. "[W]hile Sunstein is politically liberal, he's also open-minded -- someone who isn't dogmatic or intolerant and who gets along well with people of different ideological stripes."

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. "Why We Should Welcome Cass Sunstein,"
  2. Why the Sunstein Pick is Good For Legal Academics:
  3. Sunstein as Regulatory Czar:
  4. Volokh Conspiracy Guest-Blogger Nominated to High Government Office:
  5. Sunstein to Head OIRA:
AntonK (mail):

"[W]hile Sunstein is politically liberal, he's also open-minded -- someone who isn't dogmatic or intolerant...."
Oh, that's a beautiful line!
1.9.2009 1:54pm
Sarcastro (www):
AntonK, model of tolerance. just cannot tolerate Sunstein's intolerant liberalism, so he heroically steps up to note Sunstein’s intolerance, while not bothering to offer any proof or argument.
1.9.2009 2:29pm
AntonK (mail):
Sarcastro, proof or argument about what? He never says Sunstein is intolerant. Indeed, he points out that Sunstein exhibits none of the intolerance or dogmatism that is the hallmark of the liberal-left. Specific proof of that need not be cited, one only needs to be sentient to see it.
1.9.2009 2:42pm
Sarcastro (www):
[you mean line wasn't saying it was BS? If not, I apologize. I thought you were just saying, apropos of nothing, that the quote was a "line."]
1.9.2009 2:45pm
Crunchy Frog:
I interpreted it as opposed to the vast majority of liberals, Sunstein actually has integrity and a brain.

Sounds about right.
1.9.2009 3:31pm
tired of blogs:
Crunchy Frog --

Replace "liberals" with "everybody" and you'll be on the right track.
1.9.2009 3:40pm
Sagar:
it is a shame that line has to be constructed that way; in the real world (where words mean what they say), saying he is a "liberal" should have meant by definition he was "open minded, tolerant, and not dogmatic"

it is a sad commentary on today's "liberals"
1.9.2009 4:29pm
BGates:
It's interesting how this works. Democrats in general are more apt to call their opponents "un-American", interrupt their opponents' speeches, set their opponents' churches on fire, etc. It's impossible for a Republican to get credit for being someone who can "get along well with people of different ideological stripes", because the most popular ideology in the country is hatred of Republicans. Meanwhile a Sunstein or an Obama gets praise for simply rising to the level of decency that's entirely unremarkable among Republicans.
1.9.2009 5:25pm
MCM (mail):
Sagar - you mean today's "conservatives".
1.9.2009 5:59pm
tired of blogs:
BGates --

Did I imagine the titles of Ann Coulter's books? Or the similar language on Rush's and Liddy's shows? Or Little Green Footballs?

I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of people on the left who call names.

It's both sides. The political discourse in this country is uncivil. And both sides are to blame. Don't kid yourself into thinking it's just the other guys.
1.9.2009 7:43pm
tired of blogs:
Crackpot theory as to why so many people believe the other side (whichever side that is) is more uncivil:

Most people lives in groups of family and friends who are like-minded politically, religiously, etc. They know that their friends, family, and neighbors are decent, civil folk.

They only know the other side from the extreme cases depicted on tv, the web, radio.
1.9.2009 7:45pm
Hoosier:
in the real world (where words mean what they say), saying he is a "liberal" should have meant by definition he was "open minded, tolerant, and not dogmatic"

In the fake world--academia--on the other hand, those characteristics are a career liability.
1.9.2009 10:26pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Link B I Strike Block Quote
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.