By Kevin D. Williamson
Wednesday, July 31, 2019
I am very fortunate in that the thesis of my new book, The
Smallest Minority, is daily demonstrated to be true, that people on social
media become rage monkeys who behave in ways they’d never behave in real life.
A lot of people who do not want to do me any favors cannot help themselves and
keep demonstrating the truth and relevance of my argument. Take Noah Smith of
Bloomberg Opinion, for example.
Smith had a Twitter meltdown this morning in response to
some relatively gentle and polite criticism from me. Smith is a perfectly
respectable journalist in his day job — a purveyor of tediously predictable
received opinion, to be sure, but there is room for all kinds. Online, he is
transformed through the emotional alchemy of Twitter into a deranged,
masturbatory, feces-flinging rage monkey straight from Hell’s own zoo. He is,
amusingly enough, so enraged that he cannot even get straight what he himself has
written.
I hope readers will forgive the brief point-by-point
here. I promise it adds up to something. The subject is what, if anything,
poverty in Japan has to teach us about poverty in the United States.
Smith complains: “Williamson also keeps condemning my
attacks on ‘the capitalist system’, using quotes around that phrase. In fact,
that phrase never appeared in my article!” Exclamation point in original. The
penultimate paragraph of the article reads: “Too many people fall through the
cracks in the capitalist system . . .” Smith was corrected on Twitter. I wrote
to him myself to give him the opportunity to correct his error. As of this
writing, the error stands uncorrected. It remains a kind of exclamation point
at the end of his tirade. I do not much blame any reader for failing to get
that deep into the article, which is boring, but Smith wrote the damned thing,
and ought to know what’s in it.
Smith writes: “First, he says we should think about
absolute poverty rather than relative poverty. But *relative* poverty is the
kind that he, and other conservatives, routinely blame on bad behavior! FAIL.”
Trumpian all-caps in the original. I do not know which
“other conservatives” he is talking about, but if he wishes to address their
arguments, then he should do that; if he wishes to address mine, he should do
that. This is a common rhetorical strategy: Ignore what the writer has actually
written and argue with what people like him, or people you imagine to be like
him, have written. In reality, I disagree with many of my fellow conservatives
on a great many issues, from taxes to the one relevant here: the benefits and
shortcomings of the kinds of welfare states maintained in many other advanced
countries. (Short version: I don’t think either Switzerland or Norway is an obviously
unlivable pit of Stalinist despair.) What I have said and written more times
than I can recall is that our anti-poverty efforts should be directed at
raising the real standard of living of those at the bottom in absolute terms,
and that the recent political emphasis on “inequality” focuses our attention in
the wrong place, i.e. on what’s happening with high earners rather than what’s
happening with the poor. “Other conservatives” can speak for themselves, I’m
sure.
And if you’ll forgive the self-indulgence, I think that
however you might choose to characterize my views, no serious person Left or
Right would describe them as “generic conservative.” At least not if they’d
read my work. But given that Smith doesn’t seem quite able to read his own work
. . .
Also, note the silly, Twitter-y, Trumpian summation:
“FAIL.”
Smith: “Also note that Japan has a considerably lower
median income than the U.S., so Japanese people who make 50% of Japan’s median
income are actually quite a bit poorer than Americans who make 50% of America’s
median income! Williamson of course fails to realize this.” Exclamation point
in original. This is another rhetorical strategy: “You didn’t write about this
thing, but if you had written about it in the way I like to imagine you having
written about it, you’d be wrong!” I did not address the question of Japanese
incomes relative to U.S. incomes. Smith will go on to characterize this as a
“math error.”
Smith: “Next, Williamson asserts that poor Japanese
people are worse-behaved than rich Japanese people. Even if that were true, it
in no way invalidates my point, because the ‘behavior gap’ between poor and
rich people in Japan is small, yet the income gap is large.” This is the
familiar straw-man fallacy. I do not assert that poor Japanese people exhibit
more self-destructive behavior than rich Japanese do. I assert that that is the
relevant question, and that Smith’s article does not answer it. It doesn’t. It
may very well be the case that the “behavior gap” he cites is indeed small, but
he nowhere establishes the fact. To argue that x has not been shown to be true
is not to assert the truth of not-x. This is basic stuff.
Smith: “Williamson’s only ‘evidence’ that poor Japanese
people are badly behaved is this article on alcoholism, whose examples of
alcoholics include 1. an elite civil servant, 2. a prince, and 3. the country’s
finance minister.” But the article in question was not offered as proof of that
assertion, because I did not make that assertion. The article (which I thought
was interesting) was only meant to offer some examples of Japan’s considerable
problem with alcohol abuse. That Japan has such a problem is not seriously in
dispute. It certainly is not disputed by the country’s public-health
authorities, which have organized several public campaigns directed at the
issue. In fact, I wrote that the question of economic standing and alcohol abuse
in Japan is — surprise — complicated, and that some studies had found that
certain kinds of destructive drinking behavior were more common among
higher-income people. But why argue with what’s actually been written when the
voices in your head are so much easier to swat down?
Smith: “Williamson then defends ‘capitalism’, which he
thinks I’m attacking. But one wonders if he even read my article. My point was
not to say ‘capitalism is bad’, but to argue that it needs a strong social
safety net.” I do not think it is an enormous intellectual leap to characterize
criticism of “the capitalist system” as criticism of the capitalism system.
Smith: “Williamson then defends the idea that drinking
too much alcohol is bad, apparently thinking that I endorse over-drinking and
other such self-destructive behaviors. Of course, I don’t; I merely argued that
in aggregate, these are not the cause of most of the poverty we observe.” I
wrote nothing about Smith’s view of alcohol abuse. I wrote that whether one
understands destructive drinking as a moral question or as a medical question
(or as both), the desired outcome is the same: That the person engaged in
self-destructive behavior ceases engaging in self-destructive behavior. This is
an example of one of Williamson’s Laws (I forget which number I have given it),
that: “Something that is not your fault may still be your problem.”
Nobody currently living in Appalachia or Baltimore is personally responsible
for the states of those places, and none of us is responsible for the
conditions into which we are born. (I would have chosen others.) But those of
us who are of more or less sound mind and body are obliged to take the lead in
addressing our own needs and problems, because no one else is available to do
so. In some cases, lifelong or open-ended dependency on public support is the
only realistic option, e.g., for those with serious physical and mental
disabilities. But surely that is not the answer for every poor family in West
Texas or inland California.
Smith: “Williamson then claims, again with no evidence,
that U.S. antipoverty programs have been largely ineffective and that other
countries’ government-run health insurance systems wouldn’t work in the U.S.
The former is demonstrably wrong, the latter is just a bald assertion.” What I
wrote is that our antipoverty programs often have “not delivered anything like
the promised return.” Go back and read the speeches and promises that were made
on behalf of Social Security or the Great Society programs and see if you think
that is a fair characterization. It is the case that I do not think that, for
example, the Swiss model of health care would work well in the United States; I
think that because we tried it, the so-called Affordable Care Act having been
in part an effort to adapt the Swiss model to the United States. Compare the
compliance rate with the insurance mandate in Switzerland to the best ever
achieved in the United States under ACA and tell me I’m wrong.
Smith: “Williamson also keeps condemning my attacks on
‘the capitalist system’, using quotes around that phrase. In fact, that phrase
never appeared in my article!” See above.
Having exhausted the store of rhetorical fallacies, Smith
moves into full Twitter rage-monkey mode.
Smith: “What did George Bernard Shaw say about wrestling
with a pig? . . . If there’s one thing I hate, it’s pig-herpes.”
Bloomberg Opinion published Smith’s original dreck, but
it would not have published this mush. And Smith, in all probability, would
never think about submitting such a thing for publication, because it obviously
fails to meet the modest intellectual standards of the people who choose to
publish the dreary mediocrity that is his usual output.
But, as I argue in The Smallest Minority, social
media is not a means of communication. It is an attention bazaar, where people
go in hopes of being noticed and engaged with. Smith’s obvious errors and
fabrications (claiming not to have written what he wrote) would be
disqualifying defects in a work of journalism, but they are very effective in
the realm of social media. They are part of the ritual of hating together,
which is an ancient and powerful means of social bonding and status-seeking.
Mr. Smith may very well ably defend his place at the table in the vast eighth-grade
cafeteria of American public life, but he must debase himself and his
profession to do it in the way he has chosen. He has not asked my opinion on
the matter, but I would advise him that it is not worth the tradeoff.
No comments:
Post a Comment