This colorful metaphor for the futility of bad arguments has gotten some play in this election cycle. It is nowhere more in evidence than the op-ed pages of our nation's newspapers. Though there has been a deluge of conservative intellectuals leaping from the Republican cause for some time now, more interesting is the persistence of some who simply will not yield to the present reality's annoying "liberal bias." (Rod Cordrey)Most emblematic of this group of die-hards is Stanford University economist Thomas Sowell, whose recent column, "Believers in Obama," could easily be mistaken for satire were it not consistent with his normal approach to political commentary.
Despite his superior intellect and scholarly credentials, Sowell never tires of starting with conclusions and selecting favorable evidence to lead readers by the nose to his conclusions. In other words, Sowell, like many others, assumes that having developed his own opinions in a rigorous way, he is justified in over-simplifying his arguments in order to make them accessible and comprehensible to newspaper readers. The ends justify the means. I suppose if Sowell were a hard scientist and his conclusions were shared by the overwhelming majority of his peers, this approach would seem reasonable enough, at least as a way to introduce readers to complex topics.
Unfortunately for Sowell, he is a practitioner of the "dismal science." He is an economist. Economics is a discipline wholly dependent on given assumptions in order to be useful. This makes explicit assumptions the cornerstone of good arguments for an economist. Hidden assumptions, or only vaguely implied assumptions, are for an economist, serious analytical flaws. Essentially, despite the fact that his economic perspective is a distinct minority view among economists, Sowell writes as if his ideological assumptions constitute universal truths. The result is arguments that exploit the ignorance of some readers and leave others wondering how Sowell has managed to maintain gainful employment in his profession.
The column inspiring this post is called "Believers in Obama." In it Sowell argues that Obama supporters are irrational, supporting him as if he were a loved one, rather than a candidate for public office. Sowell argues that telling Obama supporters the truth, that he is a dangerous phony, is a waste of time because his supporters are brainwashed sycophants. He writes that Obama supporters "have made up their minds and not only don't want to be confused by the facts, they resent being told the facts." One need not have a job at Stanford University to recognize the hopelessly anti-intellectual implications of this line of argument, to say nothing of the political despiration it reveals. In fact, current polling data seems to indicate that the futility of Sowell's line of attack is not lost on the average voter or newspaper reader. My guess is that fans of Sowell (I actually read him regularly) will give him a pass on this one because he is understandably frustrated by the apparent political and intellectual bankruptcy of his ideological perspective.
Nonetheless, it is important to expose Sowell's argument and argumentative style on this one because he is not necessarily wrong about Obama, but his method and logic are both wrong and dangerous. Despite his academic training, Sowell makes no effort to use valid categories or empirically verifiable evidence in arguing against the Obama candidacy. Instead, he relies exclusively in innuendo and character assassination, both of Obama and of his supporters. He's attacking the messenger and the receivers of the message without laying a glove on the message itself. Would he give a student a decent grade for the same effort? I certainly hope not.
For Sowell, a committed conservative, the election is really about ideas. For him, conservative ideas are the most useful and appropriate and therefore we should elect the purveyors of those ideas. If you just read this column, you would not have any idea what the election is really about for Sowell. The power of policy ideas is nowhere to be found in this column. He seems to be arguing that voters should base their vote on the personal characteristics and character of the candidates. The fact that no one as knowledgeable about politics and government as Sowell votes this way is hidden from the reader. He is clearly trying to exploit the ignorance of his readers. Or, maybe he assumes that his regular readers share his assumptions and perspective and understand the present argument to be motivational rhetoric, a motivational speech, rather than a thoughtful argument. Most likely, both of these tactics are at work here.
So, for those not in on the joke, so to speak, Sowell's writings are worse than worthless, they are repulsive. They make it very difficult for readers who are not "fellow travelers"(he..he..) to be persuaded by Sowell's argument. While many of his fellow conservative columnists have already abandoned McCain and Palin, and even admitted that the present economic situation is partially the result of conservative fiscal policy, Sowell soldiers on. It seems reasonable to assume that his is not intended to be a persuasive intellectual argument, but rather a source of gotcha points for other "faith-based" conservatives. Sowell's belittling of Obama supporters for indifference to facts looks like a powerful example of what psychologists call projection. Clearly, it is Sowell who cannot be moved by facts. Indeed, as the evidence against his perspective mounts, the irrationality of his argument increases.
He should have called this column, "It takes one to know one."
For a dramatic contrast, read conservative columnist David Brooks. His latest column is an outstanding example of thoughtful analysis.