Posted by
Andrews on Friday, November 28, 2008 10:35:45 AM
I was reading my post from last night when I was struck by a thought. I had actually bought into a rather dubious argument. Admittedly, it is a dubious argument advanced by both the left and the right, but that does not make it any less dubious. So, allow me to offer what amounts to a partial retraction of an earlier statement. (Partial only because, while I made some incorrect assumptions, I still reached the right conclusions.)
You see, when
writing about the rather complicated history of Ms. Marsden in an earlier post, I fell into a trap that many create. That trap is confusing those who write about politic with politicians. You see, when it comes to an actual politician, then character matters. I need to know my political representative is honest, so that I know I can rely on his promises. On the other hand, I don't care about the personal lives of pundits, as I care only about what they write, not whether they live up to those standards or not. If Aristotle had an army of teenage lovers, it has no impact on the validity of his philosophy, not even of his ethical system. Likewise, Thomas Jefferson's philosophy does not stand or fall on the claims of the Hemmings family. Thinkers, as thinkers, should stand or fall on the basis of their thoughts alone, their personal lives have no part in the validity of their philosophy.
Now, there is an even more liberal interpretation I can give, as well. That is to choose to see pundits not as thinkers first, but rather as entertainers. Some may be thinkers, I'll grant, such as Sowell and Williams, but once they enter the arena of popular media, they are writing to entertain the masses in order to sell advertising, and thus should be viewed in the same way we view actors and singers and athletes. And by that standard we have been
FAR too hard on pundits, as entertainers can get away with (sometimes literal) murder and still remain adored. By that standard, Rush's drug problems seem almost expected.
But whether we see pundits as entertainers, or just argue that even if they are thinkers their personal lives are secondary, I still was a bit unfair in arguing that Ms. Marsden's personal life had any relevance to her arguments. I suppose, should she write about rape allegations, stalking, or any of the topics which came up in her somewhat unusual past, some may criticize her with being biased in her arguments, but other than that, I really think it is unfair, and was unfair of me, to bring them up.
Of course, I doubt any of this will stop the left from charging right wing pundits with "hypocrisy" for arguing for any ideal they fail to meet in their own lives. (Despite the fact that failing to meet ideals
is not hypocrisy by any realistic definition.) But I should know better as I have argued this point before. So, while I will still argue against Buchanan, mainly because my arguments always were with his content, not his personal life, I will let any criticism of personal lives drop, as it was rather unfair of me to bring it up.
Then again, anything she puts in writing is fair game, and from my few viewings of her on late night Fox, and her writing here, I just don't see her replacing Ann Coulter anytime soon.