I appreciate the gentle tone of this scolding, so I'll try to respond in like spirit.

Cathy Young is one of my favorite Bulwark writers because her mind and her way with words make her work stand up on its own, so the reference to the Bulwark having "diversified a bit" its cast of writers struck me as oddly patronizing. Not surprisingly, I found her take on the issue she addressed congenial: I consider the articulate Left's focus on racial identity as the fundamental aspect of personhood and the treatment of politics as a zero-sum competition among identity groups to be mostly unconstructive. I'll confess, though, that I thought that we'd already heard enough about the LA Council brouhaha and had drawn all the lessons that were there to be drawn from it. But writers write what they want to write about, and readers who like their work read it.

To the bigger question, the need for an alliance that crosses ideological lines to save democracy is crucial enough to postpone arguments on policy differences, no matter how deeply felt. The importance of that one issue should be enough to keep us from gratuitously insulting each other, and if that isn't enough, then common courtesy should be. This is, nevertheless, an alliance in which some people will have clenched teeth, at least some of the time. Not every article can be about Trump; if it were, we'd be playing his game. Publishing an article that someone disagrees with is not the same as pushing that person out. To find that in Ms. Young's article is, I think, to look for and find something that isn't there.