Left Coast Views
columnist: William Westmiller

Topic: About the Chart
An Apology To Readers

---

In spite of the best intentions, even those sincerely devoted to reason and civility can get angry.

---

by William Westmiller
(Libertarian)
Thursday, January 17, 2008

Whenever I write, I try my best to present all the facts and offer civil arguments for my opinions. On rare occasions, I assume the facts are obvious and skip over the arguments to offer my conclusions. As was the recent case, my conclusions can be barbed and terse. Readers deserve more than that and I apologize for allowing myself the luxury of anger and brevity.

There's no need to retell the story here, since Julian Sanchez and David Weigel have offered as much detail as can be disclosed in their ReasonOnline column Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters? Nor do I have any reservations about my prior column, Time to Out the Bigots. I can inform readers that I have been in constant contact with several people who were directly involved in the affair, but have not yet chosen to speak out. I can only hope that they will see the wisdom and necessity of doing that promptly.

Without discussing any particular person, I think there are two factors that warrant comment.

First, I fully understand the error of ad-hominem ("against the person") assertions. Invoking rhetorical charges that impugn the character of a person have no relationship to the facts of the matter. Even the most disreputable and obscene person can speak the truth, even if they do it accidentally. Some years ago, I was chatting with a highly reputable and admirable politician and mentioned his opponent's name. He responded with a flushed face, "He's just a g-damn Communist bastard." I was startled, since that opponent agreed with him on almost every issue except one, he was the furthest thing from a communist that one could imagine, and he certainly wasn't a bastard. The speaker had offered an ad-hominem description of his opponent, which accomplished nothing except to produce an immediate loss of my respect and admiration for the politician himself. Aside from being bad logic, an attack "on the person" is neither persuasive nor productive.

However, there is a qualifier. Sometimes good people do bad things. Describing what they have done is not ad-hominem, if it is the truth. Occasionally, the truth cannot be revealed, even if the description is absolutely correct. In that case, it may be better to say nothing at all. Or, it may be necessary to say what needs to be said, even before all the facts are itemized and evident. Saying it in public and in writing is certainly risky and indiscrete. I did that in my retracted column and I am sorry for offering the reader with my judgment, absent all the facts. At that point, and at this point, the revelation of those facts is beyond my control.

Second, allusions are not obvious - which is why they're called allusions: covertly or indirect references to something from a different context. For example, if I were to say that this column is a "mea culpa", I have alluded to a phrase in Latin that is commonly used in Catholic descriptions of the confessional, which requires an admission of having done a willful wrong: "Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa" means "My fault, my fault, my most grievous fault." Without that explanation, the reader is probably left in the dark about the meaning of the allusion or its relevance to the present case. It can be excused as "poetic license," but in serious matters it may hide more than it reveals.

In the present case, my retracted article made reference to "animal" as an allusion, referencing someone who had written about other people as "animals." Although a general link to the context was provided, it wasn't explained. The original writing referred to those who had committed uncivil and destructive acts during a series of riots as "animals" of a particular race. That was itself an allusion to some biblical interpretations that implied that all people of that race are "animals." My use of the term alluded to that person's writing and applied the term to that author, because I believed that he had committed uncivil and destructive acts, deserving of the label "animal," even absent the biblical allusion. But, that could hardly be evident to the reader, who most likely was not familiar with the other contexts. It wasn't just a stylistic error, but a failure to communicate. The result was that the allusion appeared to be nothing more than a crass, personal, unjustified ad-hominem insult. I regret using that sparse and cryptic allusion without context.

Finally, it was my "most grievous fault" that I didn't consider the impact on those who had provided me a forum for expressing my outrage. Putting the Nolan Chart website at risk, because I believed it was my moral obligation to express my moral indignation, was not merely unkind, it was thoughtless. Whatever justification there might have been for my barbed words, there was no justification for putting the owner in a position of having to deal with the consequences. For that, I sincerely and humbly apologize.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
9 thumbs so far

2008 William Westmiller, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, January 17, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, January 17, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of William Westmiller only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. William Westmiller is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by William Westmiller of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.