But Mine Doesn't Stink: My Two Cents on Expressing Opinions

Spare Change | June 23, 2006 | Dave Aland

[Natty Bumppo@frontier.net]

It has been said that opinions are like a certain anatomical feature (that good manners prevents naming) because everybody has one, and “they all stink” (except, of course, one’s own). The first half of that formulation is a quantitative measure – something that can be counted; whereas the latter half of the adage is a qualitative measure – a statement of value. Good debate should contain both elements, but good debate is increasingly hard to find these days.

Mark Twain is reputed to have said that the world can be divided into two groups: those that divide the world into two groups, and those that don’t – a statement both quantitative and qualitative, and of such syntactic efficiency as few beyond Twain, Lincoln, or Yogi Berra ever managed with any consistency. (Is it any wonder that they are so often quoted?)

As a culture, we tend to grant greater credence to the succinct, and assume that wisdom comes in small bites – hence the wealth of proverbs, adages, and folk-sayings that inhabit the borders of our thoughts and habits. Therefore, it is in our nature to seek simplification. But does simplification require us to divide the world into two groups – those that agree with us, and those other morons?

A good case in point is a recent Washington Post piece, in which Linda Hirshman addresses critics of her American Prospect article on feminism. (For the sake of this discussion, her thesis and their objections are moot.) In the editorial, Hirshman compares herself to Socrates, expresses bewilderment to the strong reactions her article evoked, and concludes that she can afford to ignore most of her critics, since they appear to be fundamentalist whack-jobs.

Nothing like a good intellectual discourse, I always say, and Hirshman’s response was nothing like good intellectual discourse. Coming from a former Brandeis professor and self-declared philosopher, one might expect something a bit more searching or incisive, but Ms Hirshman makes her position simple: my critics are morons, but my opinion doesn’t stink.

It’s the kind of response more likely from some vacuous celebrity than someone supposedly steeped in logic and philosophy, but she is certainly in good company. Just this month, the Ditzy Chicks – that three-woman country-rock phenomenon that imploded two years ago after alienating their fan base by criticizing the President – clarified their views. Briefly, they said they’re not sorry, and anyone who disagrees with them doesn’t “get it.” Oddly enough, if that were all they had to say, one might be inclined to admire them for sheer audacity, but it appears they have more to say.

One of them nattered on recently about the lack of personal meaning to the term “patriotism”, while another told an interviewer (in a weird flashback to “This is Spinal Tap”) that their diminishing popularity meant that they were just appealing to a smaller, but more discriminating audience. In short: we don’t care if our ticket sales are plunging, our critics are morons and our opinion doesn’t stink.

There is, then, no essential difference between the answers we can expect from either philosophers or rock stars, something which may prompt the market for hemlock to start looking up. What’s wrong with that picture is what we should expect. From Hirshman, we expect more. From the Dixie Chicks, we can only hope for less. But in neither case did these women actually address their issues, either quantitatively or qualitatively, in any useful fashion. They simply dissed their critics.

Hirshman’s opinion is one voice in the complex debate about modern feminism, but so are the opinions of those who disagree with her. If the debate is to advance in any meaningful way, she needs to address their rebuttals, not butt them aside. The Dixie Chicks, for better or worse, seem intent on joining the debate over American foreign policy by name-calling and childish antics. Their fan base, by and large a patriotic and conservative group, has rebutted their opinions by deserting them. Rather than blaming the fans, or criticizing their patriotism, these women should consider whether they are mixing their message and their medium poorly.

Good debate is about comparing ideas and making judgments. Anyone willing to enter the debate must also be willing to endure quantitative and qualitative assessments of their own ideas by others. If you are not able to do so, stay out of the discussion. It may not be that your opinion stinks so much as your inability to smell it any more.

David J. Aland is a retired Naval Officer with a graduate degree in National Security Affairs from the U. S. Naval War College.

[staytrue]

Generally, if someone disagrees with you, they must be wrong or you must be wrong. You will inevitably chose that they are wrong.

[Dog Gone]

That's a great article. Thank you for posting it.

[Natty Bumppo@frontier.net]

The alternative is to train your mind to consider multiple, complex, competing points of view and evaluate the merits and deficiencies of each. Difficult, but it tends to lead to wisdom.

Colin Powell was much more succinct about it: Don't get so close to your position that when it falls, you fall as well.