Mediaboss Marketing

Paul F. deLespinasse| The Daily Telegram

When people can't find a good argument for something, their only alternatives are to use a bad argument or claim there is no need for one.

During the summers of 1960 and 1961, I interned in the Oregon State Public Welfare Commission's headquarters.

In 1960, the headquarters were in Portland. But Gov. Mark Hatfield proposed moving it to Salem, the state capital, 60 miles south. This upset headquarters employees. Salem was too far to commute, and they hated the idea of moving.

My supervisor had me survey our employees to see what they would do if the commission got moved. Many said they would resign.

We reported details to Gov. Hatfield. He responded that he was pleased that the employees who really counted were willing to move!

Portland's newspapers complained that it was crazy to move the commission, since most Oregon wefare recipients lived in or near Portland Oregon's largest metropolitan area.

This was a plausible argument, but it was a bad one. The commission headquarters had no contact with welfare recipients. Offices in each Oregon country had all actual contact with welfare recipients. Our headquarters just provided centralized administrative services for the county offices.

There weren't any good arguments against the move, except inconvenience for the welfare bureaucrats. The governor had argued, not unreasonably, that having the commision in the capital would make it easier to supervise and coordinate with other state agencies.

Hatfield moved us to Salem in 1961. Many of the workers changed their minds and continued working for the commission.

The Supreme Court supplies mysecond exampleof an inability to find a good argument. The court has generally been happy to support its decisions with bad arguments when it can't find good ones. But it refused to give any arguments at all in upholding the World War I military draft against claims that it was "involuntary servitude," which it clearly was if those words have any meaning:

"Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement."

It couldn't even find a bad argument!

A recent example of a bad argument was contributed by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Objecting to DirecTV's decision (later reversed) to discontinue carrying a particular station, Cruz called it "corporate censorship."

Of course censorship is bad, and the First Amendment wisely prohibits it: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

But the First Amendment does not restrict the right ofprivatepersons or corporations to refuse to publish or broadcast particular material.

As a Harvard Law School graduate, Cruz must understand that the First Amendment's "freedom of the press" actuallyprotectsthe right of private organizations to refuse to publish or broadcast certain material. That is essentially an editorial decision not carrying the weight of governmental censorship.

If a newspaper refuses to publish something that I have written, I can submit it to other newspapers and other editors remain free to publish it. The TV station discontinued by the satellite company was still carried by cable companies and was also available over the Internet.

Governmental censorship like that in today's Russia, on the other hand, threatensanybodywho publishes the forbiden material with sanctions.

Sen. Cruz's complaint about "corporate censorship" is a good example of using a bad argument when you can't find a good one. But he must have known better.

Paul F. deLespinasse is a retired professor of political science and computer science at Adrian College. He can be reached at pdeles@proaxis.com.

Here is the original post:
Paul deLespinasse: Bad arguments attractive when good ones ... - The Daily Telegram