November 18 POW

To The Teach, I have been negligent in responding to your comments. I apologize. To make amends, I will be reviewing and responding to everything over the break. Please keep reading. Thank you for your help.

* * *

My gut tells me that this piece below was not my best work, but I, regardless, welcome criticism. The link to the column analyzed (or rambled over, for that matter) is:

http://tinyurl.com/6ndfcm

The works consulted, which details additional sources cited and consulted in my research, can be found at:

http://cid-a0ad97da83d903fb.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/The%20Monastery%20Archives/November%2018%20Works%20Consulted.doc

* * *

A compelling argument is essential to the most effective discourse. That is, persuasive discourse, regardless of whether the conclusion is ultimately right or wrong, should employ premises that are essentially and predominantly correct. Such an argument will reveal essential truths, which in turn will question opposing ideas or overturn them entirely. Without a compelling argument, the author or speaker must rely on the irrational or unsubstantiated—the unfortunate habit of Charles Krauthammer. To all but the unperceptive, discourse lacking a compelling argument will appear unreasonable or, at best, dubious.

Yet, it would be untrue to say that the whole of Krauthammer’s piece is built on weak premises. At first, he presents truths that are either logically sound or sedate enough so as to not be held in jeopardy. He notes the reluctance, among his own conservatives as well as the other major contenders, to question federal bailouts. He concedes that the government must save the financial sector for the sake of the economy. He also concedes the logic behind the Democratic auto industry bailout, in that it aims to avoid “the death spiral of the 1930s.” He substantiates where necessary: the financial sector is to the economy what the electric companies are to homes, and that the failure of the automotive industry could cause a spiraling pattern of unemployment and falling consumer spending.

Even though he conceded the valid reasoning behind the Democratic plan, he is not swayed by it. He argues that the bailout of one industry not in the financial sector might lead to a slippery slope and when, as he assumes, many other struggling industries come to Congress, inevitably they will dole out to these industries as well. Then, when Congress distributes aid to these many industries, it certainly be distributed it according to the amount of “clot” an industry has in Congress. Furthermore, the American auto industry, in its operations and labor agreements, is quite inefficient and uncompetitive. A better solution than aid, according to Krauthammer, would be to release and reorganize the industry through bankruptcy proceedings.

Attacks such as these operate under assumptions and other premises that may not be as sound. For example, it does not take a leap of faith to think that other industries, after an automotive bailout, might seek aid of their own. Krauthammer assumes is that Congress will, without a doubt, cave to additional requests for aid. Yet, the initial rejection of the $700 billion bank bailout plan by Congress showed that the nation’s elected representatives are, at least to some degree, responsive to the will of the People. If the People do not approve of spending more money—from the allocated bailout funds or additional appropriations—to bail out other industries, including the auto industry, their voice may impact the vote on the floor. To expect a cascade of bailouts resulting from a bailout of the auto industry might be overestimating the influence of special interests.

The weakest attempt is certainly the most aggressive. Krauthammer calls the bailout “lemon socialism.” Krauthammer states: “The point of the Democratic bailout is to protect the unions by preventing this kind of [bankruptcy] restructuring.” In other words, Krauthammer is alleging a Democratic conspiracy to benefit the unions (which in turn is somehow a socialist act). That could be the case, or, perhaps, Democrats just want to rescue the economy. If an author makes an accusation, he ought to have it grounds for his statement, else it would be libel. Now, the rules between truth and libel are not hard and fast concerning public figures—as it should be, since statesmen often work hard to cover up their transgressions. However, to allege a conspiracy, or even favoritism, without substantiation is not compelling just because it is in some way plausible.

Krauthammer is just getting warmed up with the unions. He alleges that the Democrats are attempting to “nationalize” the industry and force it to conform to their environment machinations. Yes, some speculation has been abounding that Barrack Obama is considering a commission or “Tsar” to help, along with aid, to reorganize and rebuild the industry. David Brooks, in his own column, simply doubted whether such a man with the business and political prowess to do the job exists—but that would be too sedate for Krauthammer. David Brooks does make a compelling argument against such a Tsar—indeed, a compelling argument against the bailout in general—whereas Krauthammer supposes that “bureaucrats” would issue “production quotas” for “five year plans” in a clear attempt to link the Democrat’s proposals to Communism. Some fringes venture to call Obama a socialist—communism might be too extreme to believe. Some individuals have suggested a Tsar should implement adoption of “green” product lines, though Krauthammer argues that consumers are “resisting” these cars—even though automobile sales data for the month of October, during which gas prices and auto sales plummeted, indicates that among all of the categories of cars sold, small cars were the only type whose sales actually grew.

Krauthammer has established that the failure of the auto industry (i.e., bankruptcy) could lead to the “the death spiral of the 1930s.” Bankruptcy, however, is the best option because of a slippery slope, fundamental inefficiency, and the Democratic conspiracy—so Krauthammer would have us believe. Even if everything Krauthammer says is true, are too many bailouts, too many losses, and too many hybrids really more frightening, more devastating than the Great Depression, or anything half as bad? If one should take the capitalist approach in an economic meltdown, he should be prepared to argue that bailouts threaten something greater, such as the fundamental tenets of America. Several conservative authors, Brooks included, argue that interfering in the destructive-constructive cycle of capitalism threatens the “dynamic” nature of the American economy. As for Krauthammer? “In this crisis, we agree to suspend the invisible hand of Adam Smith—but not in order to be crushed by the heavy hand of government.” Yet, is this heavy hand of government really that oppressive, so as to be worse than the hardships of down times? Not as Krauthammer argues it.

Especially in politics, trying to change someone’s opinion can be extremely difficult. Two good debaters will illustrate that on many issues, the logical truth lies buried beneath conflicting facts of equal merits—thus, the opinions that many people take may be because of a fundamental ingraining of one ideology or idea. However, if individuals are not strongly held in their opinion, if they are not prepared to defend their view, then they could be swayed by a compelling argument. At the very least, a compelling argument that goes against the views of a reader can at least help them to strengthen his own view by understanding it in the greatest depth possible. Sedate reasoning and rational emotion work towards enlightenment of the audience. Flawed reasoning, frivolous accusations, half-truths, and downright lies will either manipulate a weak audience or leave the piece open to be the next victim of a lucid critic.