You seem like a reasonable and thoughtful person who enjoys viewpoint diversity. I’ll trust Bezis’ editors to select op-eds over you. Toodles.

There are zillions of policies, some contradictory, that can be justified under of “liberty” and “democracy.” If there’s any effect at all on op-ed selection, it’s probably to push the Post slightly more towards where the Economist sits on the Ad Fontes media bias chart. Incipient fascism, indeed.

So, to get this straight, you object to Post expanding its abstract core values from “democracy” to encompass liberty. 1/

There is zero evidence that the Post will start publishing only anti-choice op-eds (since I have to spell it out for you).

That being said, Trump claims to oppose a national abortion ban and to favor leaving it to the states, and whatever else he has pushed he’s made no moves to the contrary.

There is zero evidence of that.

Were you also complaining about the “democracy dies in darkness” motto on the grounds that “such a thing cannot be “universal and absolute”?

So it’s OK for the post to say “democracy does in darkness” on the masthead, but not to champion personal liberties as a value? Why? Liberty is part of a well-functioning democracy. We literally criticize states like Hungary for being “illiberal democracies.”

Maybe submit one before you assume that arguments like this (and equally, your position is far from self-evident) are verboten?

Debate over specific policies is consistent with upholding personal freedom and democracy — which are correlated — as abstract values.

Why on earth would pro-choice op-eds disappear when pro-choice people argue that reproductive freedom is an essential party of personal liberty?

As a reality check, the Economist positions itself in favor of classical liberal values (personal liberty, free markets) and is hardly an “organ of state propaganda.” Why is this really so different?

If we agree - as I hope we do - that an opinion section can, consistent with good editorial practice, uphold “democracy” and “human rights,” why can it not also uphold “personal liberties” and “free markets”?