Some insults cannot be ignored

 

    Yesterday morning, EGD hit 10 million pageviews since it began on July 1, 2013. That seemed a big, round number, so I took at screenshot of the blog odometer and tweeted it, then went about my business. 
     A significant moment. Though it didn't strike me as hugely significant. Yes, quite a bit of clicks. But half are from China, meaning they're not actual readers, but some kind of robot spider doing ... God knows what. Trying to break in. Good luck fellows — that's like tunneling into a abandoned elementary school. Not sure what you're hoping to find.
     A more significant figure is 680 — that's the number of real live subscribers following the blog. Every morning I fire off a mass email to my mailing list, giving them each the day's post. A steady trickle of new people ask to have their names included on the list, and every so often someone asks to be taken off. I politely thank them for their previous interest, and never think to refuse — I don't want to force my words on anyone. If you aren't happy, then this isn't for you. I set you free.
     Until Saturday, that is, when I got this unprecedented email, from John F. Take a read:  

     Hello Neil…I’ve enjoyed your masterful writing, insights and turns of phrase. Brilliant, all of it. Except you’ve proven to be way too much Chicago-centric for me and, unrelated but relevant, your unnecessarily snide remarks about CNN’s ongoing political coverage (yes, based on the Harris/Walz thing) smack of too much Trumpism for me, and ANY defense of Trumpism, even the slightest, is way too much for me. Under the cloak of guilt by association, he and his cult-like followers are too much evil, in ALL ways, for me. Please remove my email from your list. Thank you.

    As much as I liked his beginning — "masterful!" —  and am guilty-as-charged for Chicago-centric, I have to admit I was gobsmacked by the rest. First, I didn't find fault with CNN's ongoing coverage — I don't watch it — just this one particular program. 

     Second, I've been accused of being a lot of things, but offering "too much Trumpism" is not one of them. If you read Saturday's post, it wasn't critical of Kamala Harris or Tim Walz in any way. Just a fairly moderate expression of disappointment with CNN for being trivial in its Thursday interview with the candidates. They asked nothing about abortion, or the opioid crisis, or a dozen other hot button issues.  Merely served up Trump's insane "she's not Black" calumny to get a reaction (which Politico promptly and nutsily cast as Harris skirting the issue) and asked about a dramatic photo, about Gus Walz crying. Tangential stuff. Frankly, I was worried I was just disgorging the general liberal opinion of the interview that I had absorbed on X. But I had to write something...
    I considered John's accusation. My initial thought was, "You work for CNN, don't you?" Then I thought harder and wrote back:

     Typically, I add people when requested, and also delete them when requested. I don't want to be anywhere somebody doesn't want me to be. That said, your suggestion that my post today is somehow a defense of Trumpism cannot be simply accepted unchallenged.
     I've been ridiculing Trump since the 1980s, when I wrote for Spy magazine. Yes, as a debater, I know that sometimes you yield a point in order to win a larger one.    But your accusation is sui generis — no one has ever said anything like that before — and rather than let you depart in error, I would humbly request that you stick around and perhaps look more closely. I'll start by saying that extremism is a Trump crime, and so taking a manichean view of him does his cause more benefit than harm. As Nietzsche said, when battling monsters, one must take care not to become a monster. I will not let you go and become a monster. Here, read this piece I wrote about Trump six years ago. That is not a man defending him in any way. Please reconsider.

     Nothing back from him yet, and I'm starting to think I never will hear anything. That's people for you. Honestly, I wondered if this isn't a Trumpie play-acting, trying to jam a barb through the armor — really, how could any sentient being come to that conclusion? But no Trumpie would make up an email like that.

    Not a biggie. For a blog as popular as mine — 10 million hits and counting! — I feel like I'm still delivering personal attention to my readers. I hope that maybe I've inspired John F. to step away from his way unfair assessment.  My entreaty could work. "A kind word turneth away wrath." If he persists in wanting to exit the fold, of course I'll grant his wish, cut him loose and let him drift off and be forgotten. You really can't argue with folks anymore — they're too set in their ways. But that doesn't mean a person shouldn't sometimes try, just for the sake of general principles.

Postscript:

     To file under "Hope, There Still is." I received this Sunday morning:

     From one not-a-monster to another, I can’t help but admire the fact that you turned my anti-Trump screed into EGD column fodder. Good on you, but note my pointed use of “any” and “in the slightest” referring to the vile, indeed monstrous scourge of Trumpism, those words meaning too much for ME. I stand behind that belief.
     Know that I didn’t mean to ruffle the feathers of your defenders, now that I know you (and they) agree with us that the Orange Scourge truly is an existential threat to our very way of life. Project 2025 is no kidding matter.
     As for dredging up the ghosts of manichean (new to me, so I looked it up and actually learned something) and Nietzsche (didn’t he play for the Packers?) now THAT’s name-calling!
     Know too that I meant no harm, just a bit of friendly rhetorical jousting, which you’re VERY good at, every goddamn day.
     Carry on, Kind Sir, and yes, keep me on your favored list of 600 or so staunchest admirers.
     Cheers,
     John F,