Discourse and Me

I did some of my best work for Discourse, and I had a hell of a good time doing it

I come to praise Discourse, not to bury it. There’s no need for mourning. The wisdom and humor and unwavering moral compass Discourse bestowed on us for the past five years will live on in the magic of the internet and in the minds of its readers—and, as in my case, in the fond memories of its contributing authors. In a world oppressed by the pressure to conform, Discourse was unique. In a media environment characterized by noisy posturing, Discourse was calm and—the word is almost heretical now—straight.

For a writer, contributing to Discourse was an amazing experience. Writing is easy. Being edited by someone who may or may not share the author’s stylistic preferences—who may or may not even understand what the author is trying to say—is excruciating. I speak from experience. Yet writing for Discourse was invariably a creative process. I hesitate to use that word, creative, because it’s been pounded and trivialized into meaninglessness. To me, it means something important is added to the world: Out of a tiny mustard seed, a mighty mustard tree is grown. Being edited by Discourse made my articles smarter and better. Something good was always added, and it was done in a spirit of spontaneity and fun.

Much of the credit goes to the chief editor, David Masci. David and I didn’t know each other before we came together over the digital pages of Discourse. We ended up fast friends. David turned out to be one of those persons who knows everything about anything—but it never showed unless you asked. He can see all sides of a controversy, and as an editor is driven by a rare sense—I hesitate to call it old-fashioned—that, for the benefit of the reader, all sides must be heard.

This attitude was reflected in Discourse’s content. It disdained tribalism. It certainly wasn’t liberal or conservative—or particularly libertarian, even though its sponsor leaned that way. Every article in Discourse was an attempt to understand some portion of the world from an interesting perspective. The sum of all the articles approached my definition of insightful analysis: viewing a subject in the round, good and bad, for and against, from every possible perspective. Implied was a tremendous respect for the reader’s capacity to judge.

Is there space in our fractured, fractious media landscape for such a catholic approach? I will let others speculate on that. Here the business side matters less to me than the substance. Being old if not wise, I have learned that the moments of high achievement and understanding must be savored and enjoyed because, like a fine meal, they cannot last. For me, contributing to Discourse was such a moment. I confess that I enjoyed it immensely.

So farewell to Discourse. Although its moment is done, the content and the experiences remain—and my lunches with David, I expect, will continue.