Sponsors

Conservatarians and their Beloved Anecdotes Email Print

There have been several excellent takedowns of the odious David Horowitz recently, one by our own Bill Hare, and a series by the relentless Aaron Barlow, one of Horowitz's most trenchant critics.  In one of his more extended critiques this past week, Barlow shows how Horowitz's pretense toward intellectual thoroughness through his use of prosopography (the collective study of a group of people to identify common trends and traits), is a sham, for the very simple reason that he has pre-selected those professors he deems to be most "unhinged."

There is a spot-on reply by commenter pico to this particular entry, one that highlights something that is at the very heart of conservatarian propaganda:

On a broader note, what Horowitz is doing is not surprising: this method of argumentation is the Right's most common and most pernicious: argument by anecdotal evidence.  Think about it:

  • A school in some podunk community changes the lyrics to "Silent Night" = War on Christmas.

  • A minority is offended by some term his/her boss uses = Political Correctness run amok.

  • A comment left on Michelle Malkin's weblog = the Left is unhinged.

  • A teacher asks for a moment of silence instead of outright calling it prayer = War on Religion in the classroom.

This is Bill O'Reilly's favorite technique, incidentally.  No background, no research, no context - just stories about 'crazy' people that are used to formulate his personal war on culture.

I would go even further than this, and add that it is at the heart of the Fox News modus operandi (and increasingly that of the other cable news networks as well); in fact, it is what links the two central aspects of their operation: the focus on narrative heavy highly particular special interest stories (e.g. missing white girl stories), often with some legal aspect, and their intensely selective approach to political news.

Pico has already given an extensive list of examples, and as Aaron Barlow shows this is precisely what Horowitz does (Ward Churchill = all profs are America-hating Stalinists), but I wanted to add a few more, and indeed a few more thoughts on its effectiveness.

I would add, first, that the love affair with the anecdote is not limited to the Malkins and O'Reillys, but extends to "reasonable" conservatives as well (never write reasonable conservative without scare-quotes around one or both of the words).  It is, for example, how David Brooks makes a living, throwing together a few examples of this or that and from this reaching broad conclusions about the red heartland (=religious, straight forward, honest, and "real") and blue coastal elitists (=Hollywood, latte drinking, Volvo -- oh, hell, you saw that old Club for Growth commerial).  IANAS (I am not a sociologist), but if I were, I would cringe, or vomit, or both, every time I hear Brooks's moralistic anecdotal junk described as "sociology."

(For that matter, this disease, of mistaking the particular for the whole, isn't limited to "conservatives" per se -- it is, of course, what characterizes Tom Freidman's interview-with-cab-driver based grand assertions about The State of the World today.)

It is also relentlessly used in a more naked political sense by GOP operatives, e.g. in the occasional performances featuring the one kind of middle class family that really benefited from some recent tax-cut that really only benefited the extremely rich, or the staged-down-to-the-pauses-b etween-words town hall spectaculars in which some well prepared supporter gives their story as a prelude to their unwavering thanks/support for the president.

On the one hand, there is no way to get around the power of the anecdote -- people react much more directly to emotional "human" stories than they do to cold statistics, and in a sense it wouldn't hurt our cause if we on the Left made more effective use of it (Clinton seemed to have a good handle on this, "Son of a Millworker" Edwards understood its power, and the rise to prominence of Cindy Sheehan was at least in part due to the compelling story she told).  Over the weekend, Christy Hardin Smith at Firedoglake showed how one example of a family's suffering post-Katrina can re-engage people with the continuing human disaster there.

But while recognizing the undeniable power of the story/anecdote (and I do:  as I said, IANAS, in fact, I'm an historian), we should also be aware of this particular favorite logical fallacy of the wingnut chattering class and be prepared to expose its fraudulent underbelly, as Aaron Barlow, pico, and others have already started to do. -- Stu


KEYWORDS: , , , , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< Lieberman for Republican Spokesperson; Lamont for Senator | Republican Political Heroes! >
 Display:
of conservative deceit by anecdotalism?  It can be recent or not so recent, general or detailed, large or petty ...

-- Stu

by sdf on 03/27/2006 03:29:36 AM EST

for the kind words for me and for your trenchant analysis.  Your comments represent why I undertook a continuing series called Media Snake Oil in the first place.

This Michelle Malkin is an exquisite work.  Who can ever forget her appearance with Chris Matthrews during the 2004 election period.  She declared that the left wing media was delinquent in failing to explore the position that John Kerry received his Vietnam battlefield medals by shooting himself.  This stunned even Matthews, who, after the shock wore off, began treating her as a nut case, something like the earlier appearance of Mad Zell Miller.

Malkin struck back with a vengeance by asking for and receiving an appearance with Brian Lamb the next morning of C-Span, where she proceeded to denounce Matthews for unfairly putting words in her mouth, when she brought the charge up strictly on her own.  

Presumably Matthews is part of that same left wing conspiracy that Malkin, Coulter, Corsi, O'Reilly and Hannity are so steamed up about!

Bill Hare

by Bill Hare on 03/27/2006 11:58:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Most of the defense of Ben Domenech was anecdotal complaint about liberal attacks on him.

A nice way to draw attention away from his plagiarism, that.

Good diary!

by Aaron Barlow on 03/31/2006 04:22:13 PM EST

 Display: