WASHINGTON — Ever since the Cato Institute fired syndicated
columnist Doug Bandow over the revelation that disgraced lobbyist
Jack Abramoff had asked and paid him to write articles favorable to
his clients, the Left and some in the media have launched a witch
hunt against conservative writers with links to private industry.
Yet, during this burning time, no one is asking the question: What
are opinion pieces for? The question has not arisen because some on
the Right, by acquiescing to the Left’s desire for blood, are
building the pyres themselves. The question needs to be asked, and
the Left will hate the answer.
An opinion piece — whether an individual op-ed or a column —
exists to promote a point of view by argument. It does not seek to
establish a fact, but to win people over to a particular viewpoint
or opinion. Therefore, the strength of the argument is the key
factor in determining the effectiveness of the piece. A sloppily
constructed, poorly thought-out argument will convince no one —
while a tightly constructed, coherent, and well-written argument
can sway minds. That is why opinion pieces are considered
intellectual ammunition in the war of ideas.
The only valid response to a persuasive argument is an equally
persuasive argument towards a different conclusion. Yet the witch
hunters’ central argument has nothing to do with the virtues of the
arguments presented by Bandow and others. Their argument is,
essentially, that because the writer has not disclosed information
about his income, he is essentially untrustworthy and his opinions
should not be given the time of day. This argument is flawed enough
to make it invalid. In logic, that’s called a fallacy.
The argument is fallacious for three reasons.
First, it has nothing to do with the views expressed in the
articles. Instead, it dwells on characteristics of the author. In
logic, this is called the ad hominem (or ad hom.) fallacy. It
should have no effect on the evaluation of the views expressed in
the article. So, if someone writes in favor of drug legalization
but it is then revealed that he has been paid to write the article
by George Soros or another proponent of drug legalization, his
argument cannot be validly dismissed on that ground alone.
The argument that full disclosure of any financial interests
would solve the problem should be seen in this light. The ad
hominem argument cares nothing for transparency. If a writer does
not disclose his income source, he is untrustworthy for not being
transparent. If he does disclose his income source, he is a paid
shill. Yet neither formulation speaks to the actual arguments.
Second, to unpack the fallacy further, another fallacious
argument arises: that those who are untainted by private sector
money are inherently more trustworthy. This is a form of the
fallacy of appeal to authority — “Look at me, you can trust me!” A
writer’s argument does not gain any more validity through the
author’s lack of financial ties.
Finally, because of the general applicability of the charge, a
third fallacy arises. By broadly asserting that anyone connected
financially with private industry is inherently untrustworthy, the
Left has engaged in the fallacy of poisoning the well: No writer
who has ties to industry deserves to be listened to — their
arguments need not even be heard, never mind addressed. The Left’s
case for transparency relies on poisoning the well for its
effectiveness: Once a writer has declared his or her ties, they
believe, the reader will not give their arguments credence.
FOR MANY YEARS NOW, opinion pieces have been the main vehicle by
which conservatives have taken their philosophy to the American
people. It was the Austrian economist and enemy of socialism F. A.
Hayek who first spelled out to conservatives that they were engaged
in a war of ideas. Since the rise of Reaganism, conservatives have
been winning this war and the opinion pages of newspapers are one
of the chief battlegrounds.
It is therefore in the Left’s interest to deny this ground to
their enemy. A campaign waged against private financial ties serves
not only this purpose but has proved beneficial in other ways. The
acquiescence of editors and news services has enabled a sustained
witch hunt. The war of ideas, unwinnable for the Left, has been
replaced by a war on writers based on prejudice.
One of the reasons why leftists cannot win the war of ideas is
that their philosophy has become almost a matter of faith rather
than of reason. Those who do not subscribe to their dogma of
redistribution of wealth, public direction of industry through
regulation, and welfarism are to be cast out. Decades of economic
analysis have shown these tenets of leftist faith to be unworkable
and positively harmful. Yet leftists, defeated in the war of ideas,
regard any expression of these truths with paranoia and hatred.
The term witch hunt is not inappropriate here. Such was also the
position of dogmatic Christians in the 17th century towards any
form of deviation from dogma. Writers with ties to the market are
viewed as abnormal, much as 17th century witch finders regarded old
women who lived alone with black cats. The witch-finders developed
tribunals in which they could secure the guilt of their accused, as
traditional courts were unlikely to rule against them. Trial by
ordeal was one such practice. The modern version is to accuse a
person of something that is not in itself wrong, secure his or her
firing by an organization more concerned with perceptions of
rectitude than the merits of the case, and thereby derail that
person’s career as an opinion writer without ever having to contend
with his or her arguments.
AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE IS the recent case of Michael Fumento. One of
the few fact-checking investigative reporters writing from a
conservative viewpoint, Fumento was fired from his job with Scripps
Howard after writing a column that pointed out the good being done
by biotech company Monsanto. Fumento’s alleged sin in was that he
had solicited a grant from Monsanto for his think tank employer,
the Hudson Institute, to contribute to his pre-established salary
while he wrote a book about biotech (Fumento received no additional
money as a result of the deal). That was in 1999. The argument was
made that Fumento had sinned in not revealing the grant in his 2006
column, and his firing was secured. Yet the argument is once again
fallacious; the money did not lead Fumento to be forever adulatory
towards Monsanto — he even called them “chicken-hearted” in a
column soon after the grant was received when Monsanto bowed to
anti-biotech pressure and stopped development of a potentially
valuable technology.
The Left will continue to do this as long as they are successful
at it. In all cases of witch-hunts, a perception of moral
righteousness is a necessary psychological element that enables
rationalization. The actions of the Cato Institute in firing Bandow
and of Scripps Howard in firing Fumento have the witch finders
smelling blood (or ashes). The McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950s
ended when the attorney for the U.S. Army, Joseph Welch, asked the
Senator, “Have you no shame?” A similar moment, not supine cowering
before the witch hunters’ zeal, is required now.
There may be such a moment available. According to a column by
Los Angeles Times writer Cathy Seipp, who has sadly
written in approving terms of the actions of the witch-finders,
relates that one of them, New York Times Hollywood
correspondent Sharon Waxman, threatened to “burn” a source for such
a story if he told anyone she was asking about it. As Seipp says,
“When journalists go from keeping secrets about sources to
expecting sources to keep secrets about them, something in the
media has begun to stink with self-importance.”
The self-important witch finders blazing with moral
righteousness have only one goal in mind: to deny the public access
to the ideas advanced by the writers they target. This is not about
trust, or ethics, or any other moral consideration. It is about
suppression of free speech and public debate. The First Amendment
says, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press.” It is neither illegal nor immoral to
write about something while having financial ties to private
industry. By inventing new social rules to forbid such an act, the
leftist witch finders are showing once again just how hostile they
are to the ideals on which the American republic stands. Opinion is
opinion and should be treated as such. Any other approach to it is
fallacious sophistry.
