On Pinter and the use of ‘enemy’

A recent commentary inspired me to take a second look at a Les Pinter commentary from January 24, 2023 to see if it seemed so outrageous that Pinter needs to be removed from contributing to the Recorder. I do think that Pinter could have written a more effective concluding paragraph if he had not used the word “enemy” in such a broad sense. If he had written that “We’re in a war on truth, and the enemy lives next door,” I think the sentence would have better fit with the surrounding paragraph which casts ignorance as treason in his metaphorical war. But self-editing is hard, and I have difficulty casting the first stone over ineffective word choices. It is clear to me that Pinter built a pretty good case that George Santos is the kind of fruit that gets harvested from the tree of lying planted by the “liars wing” of the Republican Party.

I think Pinter would do well not to pick up bad habits from the corrupt former POTUS. It is distasteful to hear the loser of the last election refer to Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger as “an enemy of the people,” It is distasteful to hear this spiteful loser say, “He’s (Biden) an enemy of the state.” The word “enemy” should in no way be banned but its use should be carefully considered. I urge self-restraint.

This brings me to the forces of cancel culture. Commenter Steve Silver (and others) wants to remove Pinter’s voice from local discourse. I don’t. Silver’s pearl-clutching over the word enemy comes across as extremely contrived, especially in response to a reasonably well crafted Pinter case that lying Republican politicians continue to corrode America to serve their moneyed interests. That is a valid point of view. People who feel threatened by the view would be better served by effective counter-argument than to melt when someone expresses and supports a point of view.

Len Andrews Porterville