|
 |
 |
|
|
12/08/00
9:30 a.m. |
||
|
In the latest New York Observer, Conason attacks Florida House Speaker Tom Feeney for pushing the legislature to select its own electors. It turns out that this isn't just a wrong-headed idea, but that Feeney himself is a monster. According to Conason, Feeney is a "flake" who supported having the state produce "Choose Life" license plates (horrors!), who opposes yoga, who has been compared to David Duke, who, in other words, has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. In Conason's mind, Feeney is probably nasty to animals and small children, doesn't shower regularly, and sticks his chewing gum under the seats at movie theaters. While Conason heaps every bit of possible abuse on Feeney, he doesn't pause to explain — beyond a few clichés — why Feeney is actually wrong on the merits. He doesn't mention, say, oh, the Constitution, which might have some relevance in any such discussion. It's all about trashing Feeney. Why? Probably pure laziness and lack of analytical rigor has something to do with it (Conason's piece appears to be almost entirely a clip job, by the way). It is much easier to do a Nexis search, pick out the juicy bits, and call it a column (hey, someone is even willing to pay for this stuff!), than to make a substantive case for or against something. But it's not just sloth. There is something characteristic about Conason's piece. It has a familiar ring, from the Left's assault on Katherine Harris (who wasn't just wrong about the deadline, but wore really bad mascara) to its entire arsenal of attacks during impeachment. Yes, conservatives can be nasty too. But the Left seems particularly drawn to ad hominem arguments, and my guess is that has something to do with its philosophical temperament. Liberals hope to achieve a cosmic fairness on earth, and engage in a results-oriented thinking (as liberal jurisprudence constantly demonstrates). So, if you oppose liberals, you must be against fairness and the very results they hope to achieve. So, it's not enough for Tom Feeney to be mistaken — even to be very, very mistaken — he must be evil. Conservatives, with their keener appreciation of process and procedure and the complications of life, seem generally more capable of separating the personal from the political. Which is why I can say: Joe Conason is not necessarily a bad guy. He just writes crappy columns. |
||
|
||
|
oday, I am going to
write about a Joe Conason column. Why, you ask, waste your time? Why,
you ask, waste our time? Because I think there is an important
point to be made about Conason's style of argument (although "argument"
is a generous word).
