Persuasion or Popularity; R. J. Bidinotto

S omeone once said that his purpose was to "comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable." That might not precisely de scribe my own motives as a columnist, but in one respect I sympathize. Like most writers, I sometimes get letters from readers offended by my views. This is especially true of columns in which I chal lenge the views of anyone supposedly shar ing "our side" of the ideological spectrum. The gist of these correspondents' objections is that, in criticizing alleged allies, I am spreading "disunity" in "the movement." Such critics misconceive the purpose of a column in a magazine of ideas. If a writer's primary aim is to entertain and be liked, he will aim to comfort his readers-embodying, expressing, and rati fying only what they already believe. He will give voice solely to popular values, stan dards, and ideas, even if these are in error. In doing so, he willchange no minds. But for his efforts, he may achieve much popularity.

However, if a writer's primary aim is persuasion, he must challenge his readers saying new and different things, not just the old and familiar. Persuasion is predicated upon disagreement: to persuade means to lead someone away from old and familiar ways of thinking, and to a new and different Mr. Bidinotto is a longtime contributor to Read er's Digest and The Freeman, and a lecturer at FEE seminars. Criminal Justice? The Legal Sys tem Versus Individual Responsibility, edited by Mr. Bidinotto andpublished by FEE, is available in a new hardcover edition at $24.95. by Robert James Bidinotto perspective. In trying to persuade, a writer may achieve little popularity; after all, no reader likes to be told, "you're wrong." But for his (often thankless) efforts, he may change minds. Perhaps even the world. The main goal of a magazine of ideas is persuasion-to change minds. It is not the job of any of its writers to comfort readers, but rather to challenge views which he believes to be mistaken, and make his dis agreements clear. No, in doing so, he should not be intemperate and nasty; boorishness and bad manners are not badges of indepen dence. But if a writer of ideas leaves all of his readers smiling and nodding all of the time, he has failed. He succeeds only to the extent that he elicits frowns of thoughtful consideration.

Anyone dissatisfied with the status quo therefore faces an inescapable choice. To avoid disagreements, he can keep silent, resigning himself to popular fallacies and follies-or he can seek to challenge and change them by voicing his dissent. But if he dares to challenge popular notions, he will necessarily "afflict the comfortable," and must accept the likelihood of being unpopular-at least for a time. This is the psychological difference be tween the individualist and the conformist. Conformity is the process of avoiding the possibility of offending anyone, by resem bling everyone. Conformists do not change others: they are the ones who do the chang ing. Rather than educate, they simulate. The result? The morally repugnant status quo 569 570 THE FREEMAN • SEPTEMBER 1995 remains in place, unchallenged and un changed. Years ago, in the January 1984Notesfrom FEE, I wrote: "Suppose valid ideas are altered to seem acceptable by irrational standards. Then the audience, unchal lenged, would actually continue to believe in its mistaken perspective. And if valid ideas are altered to be compatible with irrational standards, then it is the audience-not the speaker-that has found a new convert. "

Regrettably, to gain public support over the years, many on "our side" have been willing to conform-to water down their arguments, compromise their principles, and betray their ideals. In his recent book, Dead Right, David Frum provides ample evidence that sadly, many on "our side" have adopted this latter course of appeasement and betrayal. Many traditional critics of big government have come to realize that opposing popular wel farestate programs is ... well, unpopular. They now grasp that most government "en titlements" -Social Security, Medicare, public education, college loans, farm subsi dies, etc.-go to the middle class. So to curry favor and win votes, they have begun to recast their political philosophy to be more appealing to "middle Americans." ". . . [T]he conservative movement was born in revolt against the size, cost, and arrogance of the modern state," Frum writes. "[B]ut ... as part of the price for its emergence as America's dominant ide ology, conservatism has quietly walked away from that founding principle. Instead, all too many conservatives have developed a startling tolerance for the use of govern ment power to reform society along tradi tionalist lines."

In their pursuit of political influence and office, they now reject the very basis of liberty-individualism-and have aban doned any effort to dismantle the welfare state and to limit government. Forsaking the struggle for fundamental change, they in stead resign themselves to conformity to the political status quo, on grounds that "if ya can't lick' em, join' em." As one of their number put it, the "Right" should no longer "dwell on limiting the size of government but rather on the issue of who and what controls government. " But if individual rights is the standard, are such people truly on "our side"? Should the ideas they put forth be immune from our public scrutiny? Should the statist goals they seek be exempt from our public criti cism? The truly great thinkers on "our side" have long understood that a poorly framed and argued case for individual liberty is worse than no case at all. An argument for human freedom that is ungrounded, inco herent, compromised, or riddled with logi cal inconsistencies, is fruitless. Either it will be rejected by intelligent people, or if im plemented, will fail in practice.

Certainly, it's a lot more fun evoking smiles rather than provoking frowns whether from avowed adversaries or alleged allies. But writing for a magazine devoted to discovering the truth about sociopolitical ideas, my responsibility is to challenge ideas I believe to be in error, to raise objections whenever I believe that good ideas are being undermined or ill served-and to let the chips fall where they may. We stand at a crucial crossroads in our nation's history. We have a rare, and prob ably fleeting, opportunity to enact a fund amental political change of direction: a change away from governmental encroach ments on human freedom, and toward guar anteeing to each person his own inviolate sphere of sovereignty. We have a unique chance to begin to erect a fire wall between collective might and individual rights. But we won't do it if we compromise our identity as individualists. If, by our silence, we allow politicians allegedly representing "our side, " to sell out our freedoms and our future. If we try to maintain a fraudulent and futile "united front" with open and avowed collectivists.

And if, "to tease a smile from some cold face"-as Cyrano put it-we become meek followers instead of bold leaders of public opinion. D THEFREEMAN IDEASON UBERTY It's Time to Privatize UnemploymentInsurance by David Honigman and George Leef O ur present unemployment insurance system was established during the New Deal and was certainly a child of its times. The extremely high levels of unemployment during the Depression provided the justifi cation for a governmental takeover of what had previously been a matter of private initiative, namely income maintenance dur ing unemployment. As with many other issues, the assumption at the time was that only the coercive power of the government could solve the problem. Rather than allow ing individuals to make the best arrange ments for maintaining a stream of income during unemployment, either through their own actions· or through voluntary, cooper ative efforts, the federal government man dated that the states set up centrally admin istered programs to provide relief to those out of work.