Use of the term “challenge” in liberal journalism sometimes denotes a completely unsolvable social situation that cannot be wholly admitted. The Post article uses “challenge” three times.

Professor Putnam tells us in his Uppsala paper that:  “[T]his article is but a prolegomenon to a larger project on how to manage the challenge that immigration and diversity pose to social capital and solidarity.” Oh, so it’s a challenge.  Well, there’s no avoiding the challenge of diversity.  It’s been with us from the start (next section).  It is, though, hard to see why a sane people would be so intent on making the challenge bigger.  As Putnam says, mass Third World immigration has added enormously to our diversity, so that today’s challenge is hugely bigger than the one we faced forty years ago, which mainly involved bringing African Americans and Native Americans fully into the national life.

Why would a nation strive to increase the challenge it faces?  Was the original challenge so contemptibly small that we needed to double and triple it, to give our moral fiber a work-out?

Perhaps the idea is that by enlarging and then defeating this challenge, we shall be a better nation.  In that case, if challenges are so good for us, why not create a few more?

I suggest flooding some low-lying cities; causing landslides on inhabited hillsides with well-placed explosive charges; letting loose a few dangerous pathogens …  Or why not set off a nuclear weapon or two in populated areas to see how well we meet the challenge of swamped hospitals and mass evacuation?