What does an op-ed commentator have in common with Willie Stargell? The answer in a moment.
I recently received an email from a faculty member who congratulated me for citing misleading anti-SB 5 ads, but criticized me for not holding pro-SB 5 ads to the same standard.
He noted my lack of a “fair and balanced” approach, as though my column was meant to be an even-handed analysis of the issue, such as one might find in a purely scholarly debate.
He misunderstands the role of an op-ed contributor. In some columns, my role is less of a fact-balancer and more of an advocate.
In these instances, I feel duty-bound to be a vigorous, passionate and hopefully effective voice for the cause I’m championing.
I have an obligation to the truth, but not to be a mouthpiece for the opposition.
When I teach a tax course, I teach students how to brief, or summarize, tax cases.
I want them to understand that litigation is an adversarial process, a debate of sorts, in which each party presents a side of the controversy.
Out of this debate or clash, truth will hopefully emerge. The Roman aphorism is appropriate here: ‘in medio stat veritas,’ the truth stands in the middle.
In order for the truth to be known, it’s sometimes necessary for both sides to present their case in the clearest light and strongest terms.
People can then make a hopefully informed decision.
Does this approach always work? Of course not, but it’s the best method available, especially with issues that are complex or generate a lot of emotion – or both.
I can’t recall exactly, but I think it was one of the Founding Fathers who spoke about truth emerging from a chorus of voices.
That’s how we generally find the truth. We discuss and debate, look at facts old and new, and then re-discuss and re-debate. This is true diversity – the diversity of ideas.
So it is with some of my columns.
I see no need to either cite or support the facts, positions and points of view of the opposition. That’s their job.
In many cases, their groups are better organized, seem to have a louder voice, and in some cases are better financed than the side I represent.
I don’t deliberately seek issues to contest or positions to take. In our current liberal “anything-goes” culture and climate, these contentious topics just naturally seem to present themselves.
And I don’t see my role as that of a provocateur.
Given my age, a few have suggested that I should confine myself to somewhat neutral issues and positions, or just simply fade away.
I take comfort in Churchill’s response to the same suggestion: “I fight for my corner, and I leave when the pub closes.”
And, to tell the truth, at times I rather enjoy the fight, the matching of wits, the clash.
Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, and sometimes I change my mind in the light of new evidence that either I uncover or is shoved in my face by the other side.
A line from Dorothy Parker comes to mind: “They sicken of the calm that know the storm.”
And the process enhances my mind, my wit – and sometime my humility.
The only guidelines I insist upon are respect for the truth and for each other.
The “B and B” rule should prevail: after the debate, all sides should be able to adjourn for a “Burger and Beer” in a spirit of respect and even cordiality and talk of other things.
Who was Willie Stargell? He was the captain of the Pittsburgh Pirates in 1979, the year they won the World Series.
When asked to describe his role, he simply said, “I’m just the straw that stirs the drink.”
I couldn’t have said it better.
Respond to Phil at
