By Mark Goldblatt on 6.9.06 @ 12:06AM
Ann Coulter has an underlying point.
My mother died of emphysema in December 2003. She spent the last
two weeks of her life in a hospice, under heavy sedation but still
gasping for air and coughing up phlegm, as my sister and I
alternated vigils so that, in case she woke up, she wouldn't feel
alone. She never woke up.
Watching my mom die of emphysema made me an expert in...well,
what it's like to watch your mom die of emphysema. The experience
didn't provide insight into the disease itself, its onset or
prognosis, or its treatment options. I've no idea whether the
federal government is spending too little, too much, or just enough
on emphysema research. My mother's death didn't mystically impart a
capacity to speak intelligently on these issues.
The brouhaha over conservative columnist Ann Coulter's
disparaging remarks about 9/11 widows has obscured the validity of
her underlying point. Grief does not confer competency. If Coulter
went overboard in calling the four New Jersey women "harpies" and
"the witches of East Brunswick," she's nevertheless correct in
asserting the irrelevance of their views on pre-9/11 intelligence
failures, the state of homeland security, and the ongoing war on
Islamic terrorism. None of the women has the slightest claim to
analytical proficiency in these areas. To act as though they do is
to fall victim to the classical logical error argumentum ad
misericordiam -- an argument that appeals to pity in order to
support an unwarranted conclusion.
Let me put this in broader terms. The policy views of relatives
of 9/11 victims became no more valid on September 12, 2001 than
they were on September 10, 2001. In the case of the 9/11 widows,
the fact that their husbands were blown up by terrorists makes them
experts in what it feels like to have your husband blown up by
terrorists. Nothing else.
It's in this light that we should consider the moment, during
the 9/11 Commission hearings, when counterterrorism wonk Richard
Clarke apologized personally to the families of 9/11 victims. It
was undoubtedly the dramatic highlight of the proceedings. Their
cheers, however, reduced a serious review process to pathos and
allowed the impression that the purpose of the hearings was to
provide the families with "closure" rather than make detailed
policy recommendations. Clarke's moment in the spotlight was a
distraction, not a breakthrough.
Related to the argumentum ad misericordiam fallacy is
the white-liberal-guilt-driven belief that ethnic minority status
carries oracular insight into social ills. The victimization of
one's ancestors, according to this view, justifies both rage
against the status quo and perceptions of malign intent which
cannot be supported except by arguing, in effect, "You'd realize it
too if you were black." On the basis of this logic, the
Congressional Black Caucus has become a virtual paranoia machine,
churning out one ludicrous conspiracy theory after another, on
topics ranging from the response to Hurricane Katrina, to the
"systematic" disenfranchisement of black voters, to "environmental
racism," to racial profiling, to contemporary COINTELPRO
activities, to the spread of AIDS.
It's time to construct a wall of separation between heartfelt
emotion and policy debate. If the Coulter controversy lays the
foundation for that wall, then her tactlessness will have served a
purpose.
topics:
Islam, Environment
