The opinionistas over at the New York Times have undertaken an interesting experiment: A series of columns about what each writer thinks he or she has gotten wrong in their writing. David Brooks isn’t so hot on capitalism anymore. Michelle Goldberg thinks she rushed to judgment on Al Franken. Gail Collins wishes she hadn’t pushed the story about Mitt Romney’s dog so hard. Do this stuff long enough, and you’ll have a few regrets.
I’ve not risen to Timesian heights, but I think I’ve done OK for myself. (Read my latest column at the Kansas City Star!) And yes, I’ve made a few mistakes.
But the biggest thing I’ve been wrong about — wrong, because of the consequences — didn’t ever appear in a column, or at least not so that I remember.
The biggest thing is this: I thought when the consequences of climate change started to manifest themselves, I thought that conservatives — however belatedly — would stop with all the denialism and finally start helping solve the problem.
Hoo boy, was I wrong.
Here’s how I defend myself: I thought the incentives would start changing. It’s one thing to deny climate change when everything’s going more or less normally. It’s another thing when California burns every summer, or when Florida property owners have to start worrying about the rising oceans. That’s gotta change some minds, right?
Maybe not. You’ve probably heard about the heat wave they’re having in Europe — the one that did this:
The fire service in London faced its busiest day since the second world war on Tuesday as fires raged throughout the UK amid brutal temperatures.
Khan said the fire service would usually expect 500 calls on a busy day, but had received more than 2,600 calls on Tuesday, when more than a dozen fires were raging at the same time.
Fire brigades in London, Leicestershire and South Yorkshire declared major incidents on Tuesday, as fires destroyed business, houses, schools and churches.
Anyway, here’s Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review:
And here’s Matt Walsh, right-wing provocateur:
It’s stupefyingly ignorant.
Lowry is wrong, because he’s trying to normalize the burning of businesses, houses, schools and churches in a country where summers are so mild that most homes don’t have air conditioning. And Walsh is wrong because the ozone hole was solved because most countries banned the chemicals that were causing the problem.
People tried to fix something, instead of sitting around doing nothing making hurdy-dur jokes.
Listen, I’m sorry. Even when I disagree with people I like to assume they’re acting in good faith. But the most charitable explanation for Lowry and Walsh is that they’re damned fools.
And because of fools like them, the planet will keep on burning.
Odds and ends
My latest for McClatchy (which means the KC Star and Wichita Eagle): “Democrats have spent the last few years arguing that American democracy is at risk from an increasingly authoritarian Republican Party that won’t play by the usual rules of electoral democracy. I happen to believe they’re right. But you’d forgive Americans for thinking otherwise. What must they think when they see Democrats funding GOP candidates who embody the party’s worst tendencies? In that light, the ‘democracy is in danger’ rhetoric starts to look like so much political gamesmanship — something safely ignored.”