Over at Public Discourse (published by the Witherspoon Institute, where I work), you can already see tomorrow morning’s article, the first of a three-part series by Greg Forster, titled “Evangelicals and Politics: The Hundred Years’ War.” I think it’s very thought-provoking, and I look forward to the remaining installments.
I find much less thought-provoking Greg’s post just below, in which he accuses me of being “inquisitorial” and just all-around unfair to Richard Grenell (the correct spelling of his name), recently named foreign-policy spokesman to the Romney campaign. Fortunately, all the evidence of the unwisdom of this appointment is contained in the NRO Corner posts to which Greg links, and in the links therein. I particularly commend to readers’ attention the links to Jonathan Capehart at the Washington Post, and to Grenell himself at the Washington Blade. Readers, it’s your call whether I engaged in an unjust “personal diatribe,” or whether I have dealt the defense of marriage a setback here.




May 2nd, 2012 | 5:04 pm
He says a lot of smart things in that article, until his conclusion that evangelical political engagement is part of the problem. In reality his article and criticism of you are one and the same. In both cases he expresses the viewpoint that the engaging is the thing that causes defeat.
My response would be that his kind of romanticism is allowed to exist precisely because there are those who will directly engage and confront.