Interesting "Anti-Anti" Column

Dennis Prager takes a look at a rhetorical tactic used by the left in a column I encountered over at Jewish World Review today: the negative characterization of those who disagree with their views on any given issue. For example:

Anti-education: Those who object to the monopoly that teachers' unions have on public education and to their politicization of the school curricula are labeled "anti-education." Of course, the irony is that if you love education, you must oppose the teachers' unions.

(Interestingly, and this is more important than it might seem, Prager did not say, "Those who favor a wholly private educational sector.") This is something I noticed years ago and exploited rhetorically in a column, only to have it yanked out by a liberal editor....

Near the end of his essay, Prager correctly points out the fact that this tactic is a two-edged rhetorical sword:

The "anti" arguments are effective. Conservatives have to spend half their time explaining that they are not bad people before they can be heard. But the Left has paid a great price. Because they have come to rely so heavily on one-word dismissals of their opponents, they have few arguments.

I would agree with Prager that this tactic is no substitute for an argument, but would disagree with him that there are "few arguments" on what he calls "the left", mainly because his definition of "the left" is so much broader than it is for most commentators. In fact, by his lights, I might qualify as a "leftist"!

I have contrasted Judeo-Christian values only with leftist values: secularism, liberalism, socialism, humanism, environmentalism.

My regular readers know that from the above list, I advocate only secularism. In fact, I advocate the rise of a secular right in politics, so I am particularly wary of Prager's tendency to imply that secularism is, like socialism, a wholly discredited left-wing idea.

And interestingly, this leads me to note one variant of the "anti-" tactic that I have seen frequently used by the religious right. Those of us who do not believe in God are called atheists. That compound word arises from the Greek as follows: "from a- 'without' + theos 'a god'". I do not quarrel with the need for the term, but with the common practice among religionists like Prager to imply that atheists are "denying the existence of God". We, in fact, do no such thing. It is those who believe in God who are making an assertion and face the burden of proof. Using the term "atheist" in this way to essentially call someone like me an "anti-theist" is, as Dennis Prager might put it, a one-word dismissal, and not an argument.

In truth, there are "anti-" argument substitutes being used by some on both the left and the right. The lesson learned here is that the pot does not become any whiter by calling the kettle black. Given Prager's general intellectual "religious right vs. them" stand, this otherwise decent essay is seen, in that context, as yet another example of Prager pretending that there is no alternative to what he only half-correctly calls "Judaeo-Christian values".

But Prager's general point, that positive arguments are needed in the public debate is well-taken. A general theme in Ayn Rand's writing that too many miss is that she fought fiercely for her values. That many fail to see this fact is partly understandable: Ayn Rand was busily defending her values (e.g., capitalism) from those who would destroy them (e.g., the environmentalists). To many who encounter her, she seems at first merely to be "anti-communist" or "anti-theocracy", for example. But Ayn Rand herself often pointed out that it is not enough merely to oppose a dangerous intellectual trend: One must offer a positive alternative, and so she did.

The interesting question for Prager, then is the following: If he sees the need to make positive arguments for one's positions, why do so many of his columns focus on the intellectual vacuum of what he calls "the left" before offering -- with little or no supporting arguments-- his "Judaeo-Christian values" to fill that void?

-- CAV