Holly Warlick has stated that she wants me to sell my soul to the devil. I would like to try to answer such statements in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms. To organize my discussion, I suggest that we take one step back in the causal chain and build bridges instead of walls.
Holly wants to crush the will of all individuals who have expressed political and intellectual opposition to her offhand remarks. But what if the tables were turned? How would Holly like that? It probably sounds like I'm being sick-minded, but I recently heard her tell a bunch of people that she has the experience, ideas, leadership, and integrity to move our nation forward. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. Will I allow her to create a global workers plantation overseen by transnational corporations who have no more concern for the human rights of those who produce their products or services than Holly has for her cronies? As long as there is breath in my earthly body, I assure you I will not. What I will do, however, is inform as many people as possible that her rodomontades may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into delusional, viperine antiheroism.
We cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past. Instead, we must punish those who lie or connive at half-truths. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people were to understand that Holly makes it sound like she acts in the public interest. That's the rankest sort of pretense I've ever heard. The reality is that if Holly is going to talk about higher standards then she needs to live by those higher standards. Holly would have us believe that her machinations are all sweetness and light. Not surprisingly, her evidence for that absolutely malign claim is top-heavy with anonymous sources and, to put it mildly, she has a checkered track record for accuracy. I aver it would be more accurate for Holly to say that I'm not afraid of her. However, I am concerned that Holly uses the very intellectual tools she criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. Unfortunately, I can already see the response to this letter. Someone, possibly Holly Warlick herself or one of her peons, will write a conscienceless piece about how utterly simple-minded I am. If that's the case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed to be written.
